Analysing Student Reflection in The Learning Game Juan-Diego ZAPATA-RIVERA, Jim E. GREER ARIES Lab, Department of Computer Science University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. Abstract. Supporting student reflection is one of the goals of inspectable student models (ISMs). Several researchers have studied student reflection using a variety of strategies to support interaction with the student model. We explore student reflection using a general educational computer game environment called The Learning Game. The Learning Game provides tools to interact with the student model, mechanisms to integrate and propagate evidence, and feedback of different sorts. A taxonomy of reflective actions has been defined and used to examine evidence of student reflection in The Learning Game. Results show the existence of student reflection. Different learning activities can be used to support different degrees of student reflection. High degrees of student reflection are associated with students revisiting concepts and receiving appropriate feedback. 1 Introduction One of the main goals of inspectable student models (ISMs) is to support student reflection. Researchers have explored different strategies to achieve this goal. Strategies used vary in terms of the degree of intrusion and sophistication. For example, Kay [1] makes available the student model and provides tools to support scrutability, integration of evidence and conflict resolution. In Bull et al. [2] students are required to provide self-assessment, give and receive feedback from a peer, and explore the system’s beliefs. Bull & Pain [3] explore students negotiating and discussing the student model with the system. In Morales et al. [4] students use a computer-based simulator and a special graphical interface to interact with a student model composed of a set of rules. The student model is updated based on the student's behaviour while using the simulator. In Dimitrova et al. [5] students are guided through a constructive dialogue process in which the system can switch between different diagnosis tactics. Although these researchers use a variety of strategies, most of them report that students explored the student model and evidence of student reflection was found. On the other hand, Dillenbourg [6] states that the mere existence of reflection tools does not imply that students reflect on their learning experiences. Similarly, in promoting self- explanations, Aleven and Koedinger [7] report that using a simple menu driven graphical interface in which students could explain their answers was not effective. In fact, Aleven and Koedinger state that instructional guidance or some form of tutoring dialogue mechanism should be provided in order to promote self-explanation [8]. Our previous work suggests that using several guidance mechanisms to support student interaction with the student model, students become engaged in a reflection process that involves activities such as looking for more information about the domain content using various media, interacting with human classmates or artificial agents in order to learn more about some topic, asking the teacher for an explanation, or defending their position using verbal or written explanations [9].