Think twice: exploring the effect of reflective practices with peer review on reflective writing and writing quality in computer-science education

References

• Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anewalt, K. (2003). A professional practice component in writing: A simple way to enhance an existing course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18(3), 155–165.
   Google Scholar
• Avison, D., Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. (2001). Controlling action research projects. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 28–45.
   Google Scholar
• Bannert, M. (2006). Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(4), 359–375.
   Google Scholar
• Barel, E., & Tzischinsky, O. (2018). Age and sex differences in verbal and visuospatial abilities. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 51–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beale, R. (2007). Blogs, reflective practice and student-centered learning. Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI … but not as we know it - Volume 2. UK: University of Lancaster.
   Google Scholar
• Bharuthram, S. (2018). Reflecting on the process of teaching reflection in higher education. Reflective Practice, 1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1539655
   Google Scholar
• Chase, L. J., & Chase, R. B. (1976). A statistical power analysis of applied psychological research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 234–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, N.-S., Wei, C.-W., Wu, K.-T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52(2), 283–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chng, S. I. (2018). Incorporating reflection into computing classes: Models and challenges. Reflective Practice, 19(3), 358–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: Heath and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Dyke, M. (2009). An enabling framework for reflexive learning: Experiential learning and reflexivity in contemporary modernity. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(3), 289–310.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2005). Proposal for a recommendation of the european parliament and of the council on key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-ontent/en/txt/pdf/?uri=celex:52005pc0548&from=en
   Google Scholar
• Eyler, J. (2002). Reflection: Linking service and learning-Linking students and communities. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 517–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement. London, UK: Routledge–Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Fekete, A., Kay, J., Kingston, J., & Wimalaratne, K. (2000). Supporting reflection in introductory computer science. SIGCSE Bull, 32(1), 144–148.
   Google Scholar
• Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, W., & Brett, C. (2012). Prompting authentic blogging practice in an online graduate course. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1032–1041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisque, B., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2017). Conducting a social constructivist epistemology for students of computing disciplines. Paper presented at the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Indianapolis, IN.
   Google Scholar
• Gao, A., Wright, J. R., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2016). Incentivizing evaluation via limited access to ground truth: Peer-prediction makes things worse. 2nd Workshop on Algorithmic Game Theory and Data Science at EC, Maastricht, the Netherlands, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 66–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gehringer, E. F. (2001). Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer-science courses. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1), 139–143.
   Google Scholar
• George, S. E. (2002). Learning and the reflective journal in computer science. Australian Computer Science Communications, 24(1), 77–86.
   Google Scholar
• Grimes, D. W. M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(6), 1–43.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, M. E., Dansdill, T., & Herscovici, D. S. (2006). Bridging writing to learn and writing in the discipline in computer science education. SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(1), 117–121.
   Google Scholar
• Janisch, C., Liu, X., & Akrofi, A. (2007). Implementing alternative assessment: Opportunities and obstacles. The Educational Forum, 71(3), 221–230.
   Google Scholar
• King, T. (2002). Development of student skills in reflective writing. 4th World Conference of the International Consortium for Educational Development in Higher Education, Perth, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Kolossa, A., & Kopp, B. (2018). Data quality over data quantity in computational cognitive neuroscience. NeuroImage, 172, 775–785.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladd, B. C. (2003). It’s all writing: Experience using rewriting to learn in introductory computer science. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18(5), 57–64.
   Google Scholar
• Leinonen, T., Keune, A., Veermans, M., & Toikkanen, T. (2014). Mobile apps for reflection in learning: A design research in K-12 education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 184–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, T., & Wagner, T. (2006). In their own words: Understanding student conceptions of writing through their spontaneous metaphors in the science classroom. Instructional Science, 34(3), 227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 696–699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohamad, S. K., Tasir, Z., Harun, J., & Shukor, A. (2013). Pattern of reflection in learning authoring system through blogging. Computers & Education, 69, 356–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patchan, M. M., Charney, D., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). A validation study of students’ end comments: Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor. Journal of Writing Research, 1(2), 124–152.
   Google Scholar
• Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591–614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Understanding the effects of receiving peer feedback for text revision: Relations between author and reviewer ability. Journal of Writing Research, 8(2), 227–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2016). The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1098–1120.
   Google Scholar
• Phung, H. V. (2016). Portfolio assessment in second/foreign language pedagogy. Hawaii Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 14, 90–107.
   Google Scholar
• Quinton, S., & Smallbone, T. (2010). Feeding forward: Using feedback to promote student reflection and learning – A teaching model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 125–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, J. (2011). The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1628–1644.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, M., & Ryan, M. (2013). Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(2), 244–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, B. (1988). Writing reflectively. Language Arts, 65(7), 652–657.
   Google Scholar
• Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheldon, M. R., Fillyaw, M. J., & Thompson, W. D. (1996). The use and interpretation of the Friedman test in the analysis of ordinal-scale data in repeated measures designs. Physiotherapy Research International, 1(4), 221–228.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sitthiworachart, J., & Joy, M. (2004). Effective peer assessment for learning computer programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(3), 122–126.
   Google Scholar
• Statter, D., & Armoni, M. (2017). Learning abstraction in computer science: A gender perspective. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Tomczak, M., & Tomczak, E. (2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences, 21(1), 19–25.
   Google Scholar
• University of Wales. (2018). Reflective writing. Retrieved from https://student.unsw.edu.au/reflective-writing
   Google Scholar
• Verpoorten, D., Westera, W., & Specht, M. (2011). Using reflection triggers while learning in an online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 1030–1040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watkins, C. (2001). Learning about learning enhances performance. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10002803/1/Watkins2001Learning.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wyk, C. J. V. (1995). Programming as writing: Using portfolios. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 27(4), 39–42.
   Google Scholar
• Xie, Y., Ke, F., & Sharma, P. (2008). The effect of peer feedback for blogging on college students’ reflective learning processes. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 18–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• YuekMing, H., & Manaf, L. A. (2014). Assessing learning outcomes through students’ reflective thinking. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 973–977.
   Google Scholar