Evaluating the Implementation and Effectiveness of Reflection Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is ample theoretical justification for incorporating reflection exercises as a tool for preparing students for life beyond university, yet the utility of such exercises needs to be documented if resources are to be devoted to their implementation. This study describes the implementation and evaluates the effectiveness of a reflection exercise that was introduced in an entry-level undergraduate psychology course. Students completed four periodic reflection journals and submitted an essay summarizing their progress as learner at the end of the semester using examples from the journals to support their reflection. Multiple qualitative analysis methods were used to measure the reflective content of the summary essays. The analyses support the effectiveness of the exercise in promoting reflection on the process of learning including strengths, weaknesses, learning strategies, competence, efforts, and emotions. In addition, reviewing the reflective essays provided the instructor with invaluable insight into the students’ experience. We conclude that reflection writing can be incorporated in undergraduate studies to encourage the development of life-long learning skills with reasonable time requirements. Suggestions for modes of implementation as well as future avenues of research are discussed. Il existe une ample justification théorique à l’incorporation d’exercices de réflexion en tant qu’outils pour préparer les étudiants à la vie après l’université, et pourtant l’utilité de tels exercices a besoin d’être documentée avant de consacrer des ressources à leur mise en oeuvre. Cette étude décrit la mise en oeuvre et évalue l’efficacité d’un exercice de réflexion qui a été présenté dans un cours de premier cycle en psychologie. Les étudiants ont complété quatre journaux de réflexion personnelle au cours du semestre et à la fin du cours, ils ont rédigé un essai dans lequel ils ont résumé leurs progrès en tant qu’apprenants en utilisant des exemples tirés de leurs journaux pour soutenir leur réflexion. Plusieurs méthodes d’analyse qualitative ont été utilisées pour mesurer le contenu réflectif des essais. Les analyses soutiennent l’efficacité de l’exercice pour favoriser la réflexion sur le processus d’apprentissage, y compris les forces, les faiblesses, les stratégies d’apprentissage, la compétence, les efforts et les émotions. De plus, le fait d’avoir examiné les essais de réflexion a fourni à l'instructeur des indications d’une valeur inestimable sur l’expérience des étudiants. Nous concluons que la rédaction réflective peut être incorporée dans les études de premier cycle pour encourager le développement de compétences d’apprentissage qui serviront tout au long de la vie et ce selon des exigences raisonnables quant au temps requis. Des suggestions de divers modes de mise en oeuvre ainsi que d’avenues pour des recherches futures sont également discutées.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.072 | 0.253 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".