Interviews to Guide Reflection¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 8 studies (4 quant-synthesis, 1 causal, 1 review, 1 associational, 1 theoretical), q2–q4 · 3 of 8 report an effect size

Description¶

Interviews to guide reflection are structured one-on-one conversations—teacher-to-student or peer-to-peer—held at the close of a learning sequence to elicit what was learned, how it was learned, and how it might transfer to future settings. The interviewer asks open, probing questions while the interviewee articulates their reasoning, making the interview a form of guided self-explanation [+S]. The format also models and rehearses habits of mind: listening with empathy, communicating with precision, and posing productive questions.

Design Implications¶

Interviews convert private, often vague impressions of learning into explicit verbal articulation, which strengthens conceptual understanding and reveals misconceptions that written reflection may conceal Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S]. Because the interviewer controls pacing and follow-up, interviews can be tuned to the individual—something whole-class debriefs cannot do. Their value depends on question quality: prompts that target process ("How did you decide…?") produce deeper reflection than prompts that target outcomes ("What grade did you get?") Feedback is most effective at the task and process levels. [+S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A prepared question protocol (3–6 open questions) that moves from recall to process to transfer
• Trained interviewers — teachers model the technique first, then students take turns as interviewer and interviewee
• A climate of psychological safety; interviewees must be comfortable discussing confusion and error
• Protected time at the end of a lesson, unit, term, or year

Constraints¶

• Effectiveness collapses when the interviewee is uncomfortable thinking aloud or distrusts the interviewer; early interviews with unfamiliar partners yield superficial answers [~M]
• Poorly trained interviewers tend to ask closed, evaluative questions that terminate reflection rather than deepen it
• One-on-one format is time-intensive; at scale it must be paired or rotated, which reduces depth
• Students with limited verbal fluency or language proficiency may under-represent what they know unless given preparation time or alternative response modes

Implementation Variability¶

• Teacher–student conferences: brief individual interviews during work time, common in writing workshop models
• Peer interviews: students alternate interviewer/interviewee roles using a shared protocol; doubles as rehearsal of questioning skills
• Portfolio interviews: the interview is anchored to artifacts (drafts, problem sets, projects), grounding talk in evidence
• Capstone or exit interviews: end-of-year conversations that synthesize learning across a course or program

Target Learners¶

• All learner levels, but the largest gains appear for learners who rarely reflect spontaneously; the interview supplies the self-monitoring scaffold they lack Self-monitoring improves self-regulation. [+M]
• Adolescents and adults, who can sustain the reciprocal role demands of interviewing; younger children need heavily scripted protocols
• Students who benefit from verbal processing and individualized attention over written reflection

Target Learning Goals¶

• Metacognition: articulating strategies, monitoring, and self-assessment Self-monitoring improves self-regulation. [+M]
• Transfer planning: identifying where and how learning applies to future settings
• Communication and social habits: precise questioning, empathetic listening, giving and receiving feedback Feedback is most effective at the task and process levels. [+S]

Instructions¶

1. Model the interview. Teacher interviews one student in front of the class, thinking aloud about question choices and follow-ups, so students see expert questioning demonstrated (Coaching).
2. Distribute the protocol. Give pairs or the class 3–6 open questions sequenced from recall → process → transfer; anchor questions to concrete artifacts where possible.
3. Conduct paired interviews. Students alternate interviewer and interviewee roles; interviewers practice follow-up probes rather than moving to the next scripted question (Articulation).
4. Debrief publicly. Volunteers share one insight from their partner's interview with the whole group (Class Discussion).
5. Record commitments. Each interviewee writes one specific application or adjustment for future work, which the teacher can revisit at the next check-in.

Related Strategies¶

• Exit tickets and closing reflections — written, whole-class cousins of the interview that trade depth for efficiency
• Learning conferences — the teacher-led variant anchored to portfolios and goal-setting
• Identify information gaps through national conference review to set research and development strategies

Examples¶

• Writing workshop conferences (Calkins' Units of Study, https://www.unitsofstudy.com) — brief teacher–student interviews about a draft, following a research–decide–teach arc.
• Expeditionary Learning (EL Education) passage portfolios — students present and are interviewed about their work at student-led conferences (https://eleducation.org).
• End-of-unit peer interviews in IB programmes — students interview each other about approaches to learning (ATL) skills before reflection journals are finalized.

Key Sources¶

• Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
• Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success. ASCD.
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2