Cited by 140Innovative Human-Technology InteractionUsability and User Interface DesignInteractive and Immersive Displays

Revisiting Reflection in HCI: Four Design Resources for Technologies that Support Reflection

Open access
Bentvelzen, Marit, Woźniak, Paweł W., Herbes, Pia S.F., Stefanidi, Evropi, Niess, Jasmin·2022·Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies

Abstract

Reflection is a commonly addressed design goal in commercial systems and in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research. Yet, it is still unclear what tools are at the disposal of designers who want to build systems that support reflection. Understanding the design space of reflection support systems and the interaction techniques that can foster reflection is necessary to enable building technologies that contribute to the users' well-being. In order to gain additional insight into how interactive artefacts foster reflection, we investigated past research prototypes and reflection-supporting smartphone applications (apps). Through a structured literature review and an analysis of app reviews, we constructed four design resources for reflection: temporal perspective, conversation, comparison and discovery. We also identified design patterns in past digital artefacts that implement the resources. Our work constitutes intermediate-level knowledge that is intended to inspire future technologies that better support reflection.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3517233

Cites

104 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Interventions that cue users to reflect on their goals and strategies via question prompts or conversational interfaces have been shown to improve outcomes in the workplace, education, and other domains.

    “Interventions that cue users to reflect on their goals and strategies via question prompts or conversational interfaces have been shown to improve outcomes in the workplace [92,122,209], education [51], and other domains [17,147].”

    From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [17]

    Section 5.2.2 describes conversational systems that ask questions to stimulate reflection, including a workplace chatbot. The Introduction also describes reflection-supporting systems across diverse settings. But the paper does not establish that prompts about goals and strategies improve outcomes in the workplace, education, and other domains; the Introduction says which techniques are likely to be effective remains unclear. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some HCI research on designing technology for reflection focuses on personal informatics, designing technology for self-improvement.

    “Some HCI research on designing technology for reflection focuses on the domain of personal informatics, designing technology for the functional goal of supporting self-improvement [6,37].”

    From Reflection Across AI-based Music Composition (2024) · cites this paper as [6]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Staffan Björk, Sus Lundgren, and Jussi Holopainen. 2003. Game Design Patterns. In Level Up, Vol. 54. 180-193. https://doi.org/10.1.1. 10.4097
  2. John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189, 194 (1996), 4-7.
  3. Maliheh Ghajargar, Alberto De Marco, and Francesca Montagna. 2017. "Wise things": When smart objects stimulate reflection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction 2017 -Part of the Multi Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems 2017. 233-238.
  4. Wijnand A IJsselsteijn, Yvonne AW de Kort, and Karolien Poels. 2013. The game experience questionnaire. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven 46, 1 (2013).
  5. M Merleau-Ponty. 1962. Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.) London & New York: Routledge Classics. Original work published in (1962).
  6. Jack Mezirow et al. 1990. How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood 1, 20 (1990), 1-6.
  7. Reinhard Pekrun, Thomas Goetz, Anne C Frenzel, Petra Barchfeld, and Raymond P Perry. 2011. Measuring emotions in students' learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary educational psychology 36, 1 (2011), 36-48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bentvelzen, M., Woźniak, P. W., Herbes, P. S. F., Stefanidi, E., & Niess, J.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
  • University of Bremen (DE)
  • University of St.Gallen (CH)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
Published
2022-03-29
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
1-27
ISSN
2474-9567 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4221112461
Cited by
137
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 2
FWCI
10.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies (publishedVersion)
  • Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen) (acceptedVersion)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Alexandria (UniSG) (University of St.Gallen) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
Keywords
reflection, design space, interaction techniques, mobile application, app reviews, time perspective, conversation, comparison, discovery, design patterns, user well-being, digital artifacts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review