Assessing reflective writing: Analysis of reflective writing in an engineering design course

Reidsema, Carl and Mort, Pam (2009). Assessing reflective writing: Analysis of reflective writing in an engineering design course. In: David Rowland, Special Issue: Proceedings of the 9th Biennial Conference of the Association for Academic Language and Learning. Ninth Biennial Conference of the Association for Academic Language and Learning, St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia, (A-117-A-129). 26 - 27 November 2009.

Author Reidsema, Carl
Mort, Pam
Title of paper Assessing reflective writing: Analysis of reflective writing in an engineering design course
Conference name Ninth Biennial Conference of the Association for Academic Language and Learning
Conference location St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia
Conference dates 26 - 27 November 2009
Proceedings title Special Issue: Proceedings of the 9th Biennial Conference of the Association for Academic Language and Learning
Journal name Journal of Academic Language and Learning
Place of Publication Association for Academic Language Learning
Publisher Canberra, Australia
Publication Year 2009
Sub-type Fully published paper
ISSN 1835-5196
Editor David Rowland
Volume 3
Issue 2
Start page A-117
End page A-129
Total pages 13
Language eng
Abstract/Summary Peer Review is used in a first year engineering design course to assess a series of reflective writing entries on the engineering design process and teamwork. Peer review can be beneficial for both reviewer and writer in increasing their awareness of how well they are communicating their learning, and, in providing opportunities to gain insights from each others’ experiences and understandings of the engineering design process. However, there is limited literature on objective assessment of reflections about the engineering design process. This paper explores the question, what are the linguistic features that distinguish different levels of reflection? The first stage of the investigation was a text analysis of reflective writing representing both high and low peer review scores, to identify similar and dissimilar linguistic features in the texts. While the analysis is ongoing, preliminary findings have revealed clear differences between “good” and “poor” reflective writing. These differences have been found in writers’ use of connectives and appraisal. Reflective texts that provide rich explanations and which are more likely to criticise (rather than praise) their own learning process are more likely to be rated high by peer reviewers. Future investigation will map linguistic features in reflective writing onto learning taxonomies such as Blooms and SOLO taxonomy to provide clear guidelines for assessing reflective writing on the engineering design process.
Keyword Reflective writing
Engineering design process
Causality
Appraisal
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 19 Oct 2011, 15:57:32 EST by Viviane Victoria Crosthwaite on behalf of Faculty Of Engineering, Architecture & Info Tech