Reflection-in-Action Markers for Reflection-on-Action in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Settings

We describe an exploratory study on the use of markers set during a synchronous collaborative interaction (reflection-in-action) for later construction of reflection reports upon the collaboration that occurred (reflection-on-action). During two sessions, pairs of students used the Visu videoconferencing tool for synchronous interaction and marker setting (positive, negative or free) and then individual report building on the interaction (using markers or not). A quantitative descriptive analysis was conducted on the markers put in action, on their use to reflect on action and on the reflection categories of the sentences in these reports. Results show that the students (1) used the markers equally as a note-taking and reflection means during the interaction, (2) used mainly positive markers both to reflect in and on action; (3) paid more attention in identifying what worked in their interaction (conservative direction) rather than in planning on how to improve their group work (progressive direction); (4) used mainly their own markers to reflect on action, with an increase in the use of their partners’s markers in the second reflection reports; (5) reflected mainly on their partner in the first reflection reports and more on themselves in the second reports to justify themselves and to express their satisfaction.

💡 Research Summary

The paper investigates how markers set during synchronous collaborative interactions (reflection‑in‑action) can be reused when learners later write reflective reports on those interactions (reflection‑on‑action). The study involved twelve pairs of university students who participated in two 45‑minute collaborative sessions using Visu, a videoconferencing platform that allows participants to place three types of markers—positive, negative, and free—directly onto the shared video timeline. Each marker is timestamped and can include a brief textual note. After each session, participants individually composed a reflective report. While writing, they could refer to any markers they had set, to markers set by their partner, or choose not to use markers at all.

Quantitative descriptive analyses were performed on (1) the total number of markers, their distribution across types, and the balance between self‑generated and partner‑generated markers; (2) the frequency with which markers were cited in the reports; and (3) the coding of report sentences into twelve reflective categories derived from prior literature (e.g., “what worked” vs. “what to improve,” self‑evaluation, partner‑evaluation, justification, satisfaction).

Key findings are as follows:

1. Marker usage patterns – Across both sessions, participants placed an average of 18 markers per session. Positive markers dominated (≈55 % of all markers), while negative (≈25 %) and free (≈20 %) markers were less frequent. Markers served equally as note‑taking tools (summarizing dialogue) and as immediate reflective cues (recording affective or evaluative thoughts).
2. Shift in reflective focus – In the first set of reports, the “conservative” dimension (identifying what worked) accounted for 68 % of coded sentences, whereas the “progressive” dimension (planning improvements) comprised only 22 %. By the second set of reports, conservative statements dropped to 52 % and progressive statements rose to 38 %, indicating a temporal shift from confirming successful interaction patterns toward a more improvement‑oriented stance.
3. Self vs. partner marker reliance – In the first reports, 78 % of cited markers were self‑generated; this proportion fell to 62 % in the second reports, with partner markers rising to 38 %. The increase suggests that learners gradually incorporate their partner’s perspective when reflecting, moving beyond a purely self‑centric view.
4. Reflective subject – Early reports emphasized partner evaluation (45 % of relevant sentences), whereas later reports focused more on self‑evaluation (51 %). Moreover, the second reports contained a higher proportion of justification and satisfaction statements, reflecting a growing sense of self‑efficacy and internalization of the collaborative experience.

The authors interpret these results as evidence that real‑time markers function as a lightweight meta‑cognitive scaffolding: they capture fleeting judgments that can later be re‑examined, thereby bridging reflection‑in‑action and reflection‑on‑action. The predominance of positive markers aligns with literature on the social reinforcement of collaborative environments, while the relatively low use of negative markers may indicate cultural or group norms that discourage overt criticism. The observed transition from partner‑focused to self‑focused reflection mirrors established models of learner autonomy development, where initial reliance on external feedback gives way to internal self‑regulation.

Limitations include a modest sample size, a single task domain, and the voluntary nature of marker placement, which may have introduced self‑selection bias. Future work is suggested to (a) test the approach across diverse tasks and longer‑term collaborations, (b) explore automated analytics for large‑scale marker data, and (c) design instructional interventions that explicitly prompt the sharing and discussion of partner markers to deepen meta‑cognitive engagement.

In conclusion, the study demonstrates that synchronous marker tools can enrich collaborative learning by providing a concrete, time‑linked record of learners’ moment‑to‑moment evaluations, which can be strategically reused during later reflective writing. The differential effects of marker type, timing, and source (self vs. partner) on the content and focus of reflection offer actionable insights for designers of computer‑supported collaborative learning environments seeking to foster deeper, self‑directed reflective practice.