Advertisement

Educators’ Validation on a Reflective Writing Framework (RWF) for Assessing Reflective Writing in Computer Science Education

  • Huda AlrashidiEmail author
  • Mike JoyEmail author
  • Thomas Daniel Ullmann
  • Nouf Almujally
Conference paper
  • 105 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12149)

Abstract

The need for effective Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) and automated assessment is increasing. One area of ITSs has become urgent is that of the automated assessment of reflective writing. The reflective writing has been promoted, in higher education, in order to encourage students to think critically about their learning. However, many frameworks have been developed for assessing student’s reflective writing. Up to our knowledge, there is no empirical studies to validate reflective writing frameworks that used in Computer Science (CS) education. This paper presents the validation of reflective Writing Framework (RWF) by CS educators. The expert panelists validated the RWF. Subsequently, we proposed an ITS model for automating reflective writing analysis. The RWF was accepted that it received a level of consensus from the experts who reported obtaining from good to appropriate results using it.

Keywords

Reflection Reflective writing Computer Science Assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research was partially funded by Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences (KFAS) under project code “CB19-68SM-01”.

References

  1. 1.
    Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D.: Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. Nichols Publishing Company, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    VanLehn, K.: The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educ. Psychol. 46(4), 197–221 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Demmans Epp, C., Akcayir, G., Phirangee, K.: Think twice: exploring the effect of reflective practices with peer review on reflective writing and writing quality in computer-science education. Reflect. Pract. 20(4), 533–547 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chng, S.I.: Incorporating reflection into computing classes: models and challenges. Reflect. Pract. 19(3), 358–375 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    George, S.E.: Learning and the reflective journal in computer science. Aust. Comput. Sci. Commun. 24(1), 77–86 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koole, S., et al.: Factors confounding the assessment of reflection: a critical review. BMC Med. Educ. 11(1), 104 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stone, J.A., Madigan, E.M.: Integrating reflective writing in CS/IS. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 39(2), 42–45 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alrashidi, H., Joy, M., Ullmann, T.: A reflective writing framework for computing education. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE 2019, Aberdeen, UK (2019)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Summet, V.: Reflective writing through primary sources. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 97 (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alrashidi, H., et al.: A framework for assessing reflective writing produced within the context of computer science education. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK 2020), Frankfurt, Germany (2020)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lynn, M.R.: Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs. Res. 35(6), 382–386 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., Owen, S.: Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res. Nurs. Health 30(4), 459–467 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fleiss, J.L., Levin, B., Paik, M.C.: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. Wiley, Hoboken (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wong, F.K., et al.: Assessing the level of student reflection from reflective journals. J. Adv. Nurs. 22(1), 48–57 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ullmann, T.D.: Automated analysis of reflection in writing: validating machine learning approaches. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 29(2), 1–41 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Williams, R.M., et al.: Journal writing to promote reflection by physical therapy students during clinical placements. Physiother. Theory Pract. 18(1), 5–15 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations