Guided and Unguided Student Reflections

TL;DR

This study compares guided, partially guided, and unguided student reflections across different courses, revealing that all types promote metacognitive practices but differ in frequency and nature, informing better reflection strategies.

Contribution

It introduces a new coding scheme for unguided reflections and compares reflection types using linguistic analysis, filling a gap in understanding reflection methods.

Findings

Both reflection types promote metacognition.

Guided and unguided reflections differ in frequency and content.

Linguistic analysis confirms distinct reflection categories.

Abstract

Self-reflection is important metacognitive skill, enabling students to build coherence into their learning and embed content in a broader context. While various pedagogical techniques exist to encourage student reflection, little research has examined the differences between formally guided, partially guided and unguided reflections. This study focuses on student responses to online Guided Reflection Forms (GRFs) from students in a first-semester non-physics class and, separately, a sophomore-level Vibrations \& Waves course for physics majors, and compares these guided reflections with partially guided and unguided journals from a STEM enrichment summer program for incoming college students. A previously developed coding scheme was used on guided reflections and the {\bf LIWC} computational linguistics tool used to confirm the distinct nature of the categories. A new coding scheme was created and validated for the unguided journals. We find that both guided and unguided reflections elicit metacognitive and reflective practice, although of measurably different frequencies and kinds.