Self-reflection and academic performance: Is there a relationship?

Abstract

The purposes of the present study were two-fold: first, to evaluate whether reflection journal writing was effective in promoting self-reflection and learning, and whether students become better at self-reflection if they engage continuously in reflection journal writing. To that end, the reflection journals of 690 first-year applied science students at a local polytechnic were studied by means of an automated coding procedures using software. Data was collected twice, once at the beginning and again towards the end of an academic year. Outcomes of the textual content analyses revealed that students reflected on both the process and contents of their learning: critical review of past learning experiences, learning strategies and summaries of what was learned. Correlational analyses showed weak to moderate inter-relationships between the textual categories and their classroom and knowledge acquisition test grades. Taken together, the findings suggest that self-reflection on both how and what students have learned does lead to improvements in academic performance, although to a limited extent.

Full text

Self-reflection and academic performance:
is there a relationship?
Magdeleine D. N. Lew
•
Henk G. Schmidt
Received: 7 February 2011 / Accepted: 15 April 2011 / Published online: 5 May 2011
Ó The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract The purposes of the present study were two-fold: first, to evaluate whether
reflection journal writing was effective in promoting self-reflection and learning, and
whether students become better at self-reflection if they engage continuously in reflection
journal writing. To that end, the reflection journals of 690 first-year applied science stu-
dents at a local polytechnic were studied by means of an automated coding procedures
using software. Data was collected twice, once at the beginning and again towards the end
of an academic year. Outcomes of the textual content analyses revealed that students
reflected on both the process and contents of their learning: critical review of past learning
experiences, learning strategies and summaries of what was learned. Correlational analyses
showed weak to moderate inter-relationships between the textual categories and their
classroom and knowledge acquisition test grades. Taken together, the findings suggest that
self-reflection on both how and what students have learned does lead to improvements in
academic performance, although to a limited extent.
Keywords Self-reflection  Reflection journals  Classroom performance grades 
Academic performance
Introduction
The role of reflection in education has created an upsurge of interest amongst educators and
researchers since Dewey’s (1991) ground-breaking work, which emphasized the positive
roles that reflection might play in fostering students’ self-reflection, critical thinking, and in
the demonstrable development of professional values or skills. Self-reflection (or simply,
reflection) has received numerous definitions from different sources in the literature. In his
work, Dewey had defined reflection as ‘‘active, persistent and careful consideration of any
M. D. N. Lew (&)
Republic Polytechnic, Woodlands, Singapore
e-mail: magdeleine_lew@rp.sg
H. G. Schmidt
Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
123
Adv in Health Sci Educ (2011) 16:529–545
DOI 10.1007/s10459-011-9298-z

belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the
further conclusion to which it tends’’ (p. 9). According to Mann et al. (2009), they suggest
that Dewey’s definition of reflection shares similarities with our understanding of critical
thinking. Boud et al. (1985) aptly define reflection in the context of learning and focus
more on one’s personal experience as the object of reflection, as referring to ‘‘those
intellectual and affective activities that individuals engage into explore their experience,
which leads to new understanding and appreciations’’ (p. 19). The definition of reflection
by Moon (1999), on the other hand, focuses more on the role of reflection and learning, and
embeds reflection into the learning process. She describes reflection as ‘‘a form of mental
processing with a purpose and/or anticipated outcome that is applied to relatively complex
or unstructured ideas for which there is not an obvious solution’’ (p. 23). All three defi-
nitions though focus on different contexts, share similarities in that they emphasize pur-
poseful critical analysis of knowledge and experience so as to achieve deeper meaning and
understanding.
The definitions of self-reflection, though heterogeneous, are united in their advocacy to
improve student learning. In the present study, self-reflection is influenced by these
interpretations. It refers to the processes that a learner undergoes to look back on his past
learning experiences and what he did to enable learning to occur (i.e. self-reflection on how
learning took place), and the exploration of connections between the knowledge that was
taught and the learner’s own ideas about them (i.e. self-reflection on what was learned). It
is contended that since processes such as these can lead to informed and thoughtful
deliberations on one’s behaviours and actions, they are believed to assist learners to
become better at self-reflection, which leads subsequently to better academic achievement.
Reflection and problem-based learning
Problem-based learning (PBL) tend to be characterized by students working collabora-
tively in small groups, with learning centred on problems relevant to the students’ domain
of study and much time spent on self-directed learning. In PBL, students learn by solving
problems and reflecting on their experiences (Hmelo-Silver 2004). Reflecting on the
relationship between problem solving and learning is a critical component of PBL and is
needed to support the construction of extensive and flexible knowledge (Salomon and
Perkins 1989). According to Salomon and Perkins, self-reflection helps students to
(a) review the group process and their own personal functioning in the group, (b) under-
stand how their learning and problem-solving strategies might be reapplied, and (c) relate
new knowledge to prior understanding (i.e. contents that were discussed and taught). PBL
incorporates reflection several times throughout the learning process and when completing
a problem. At the completion of a problem, students reflect on what they have learned, how
well they collaborated with the group, and how effectively they directed their learning. As
such, students learn self-reflection when they become proficient in assessing their own
progression in learning.
In her work, Hmelo-Silver (2004) highlighted that while a tutor can support self-
reflection in PBL, other techniques may also be helpful. One approach to improving self-
reflection is through the use of reflection journals.
Reflection journals, self-reflection and academic achievement
Self-reflection’s currency as a topic of educational importance has resulted in the incor-
poration of reflection journals as learning tools that promote reflection into many curricula,
530 M. D. N. Lew, H. G. Schmidt
123

including PBL (Mann et al. 2009). Reflection journal writing is believed to enable students
to critically review processes of their own learning and behaviours, and to understand their
ability to transform their own learning strategies (Gleaves et al. 2008). Reflection journals
are variously referred to as ‘‘reflective journals’’ (e.g. Chirema 2007), ‘‘reflective learning
journals’’ (e.g. Thorpe 2004) or ‘‘learning journals’’ (e.g. Moon 1999). Although used in a
variety of courses, reflection journals are essentially written records that students create as
they think about various concepts learned, about critical incidents involving their learning,
or about interactions between students and teachers, over a period of time for the purpose
of gaining insights into their own learning (Thorpe 2004). The purposes of reflection
journal writing include: to critically review the behaviours (e.g. strengths and weaknesses;
learning styles and strategies) (Weinstein and Mayer 1986); learning of self and others;
setting or tracking learning goals (i.e. how learning took place) (Lew and Schmidt 2011);
and exploring connections between knowledge that was learned and students’ own ideas
about them (Moon 1999). It is hoped that through reflecting and writing about new
information or ideas, learners can better understand and remember them. In addition, the
articulation of connections between new information, ideas, prior or existing knowledge
also deepens learning (O’Rourke 1998).
The literature reports of a positive association between journal keeping and learners’
cognitive skills. In their study, McCrindle and Christensen (1995) explored the impact of
reflection journal writing on cognitive processes and academic performances of forty
undergraduates in a first-year biology course. Students were randomly assigned to a
learning journal (experimental) group or scientific report (control) group. Their findings
demonstrate that students in the experimental group used more cognitive strategies during
a learning task as compared to those in the control group. Students who kept learning
journals also showed more sophisticated conceptions of learning, greater awareness of
cognitive strategies, and demonstrated the construction of more complex and related
knowledge structures when learning from text. They also performed significantly better on
the final examination for the course. While the data from this study are suggestive, it is
unclear as to the precise nature of the relationships between students’ conceptions of
learning and their cognitive processes, and more research is required to explicate these
links.
The literature offers evidence that students, regardless of their domains of study, show
improvements in their learning, that is, students became better in self-reflection, through
journal keeping, although students did not reportedly become better at earning higher test
grades. For instance, Selfe et al. (1986) investigated the use of reflection journals in a
college-level mathematics course. Their findings suggest that while reflection journals did
not necessarily assist students with earning high grades on achievement tests, they did
assist students in developing abstract thinking thereby enabling them to better conceptu-
alize the meaning of technical definitions. Students appeared to develop better strategies in
problem solving through writing as compared to mere memorizing of calculations. In
addition, students also showed improvements in their reflective writing skills, for instance,
they were able to develop personal conceptual definitions that were more understandable
than technical definitions of the texts. The findings by Selfe and colleagues were mirrored
in the study by Moon (1999), where she summarized a number of studies which examined
the effects of reflection journal writing on student academic achievement across a variety
of disciplines. She reported that some studies showed effects, whilst others did not. Like
Selfe and colleagues, Moon’s work also demonstrated the influence of journal keeping on
student academic performance was subtle and did not seem to assist students with
achieving better achievement test grades. However, this conclusion which they drew could
Self-reflection and academic performance 531
123

be due to small sample sizes and poor measurement of the content of students’ journal
responses in the studies reported.
The evidence to support and inform the curricular intervention of reflection journal
writing as a means to improve students’ self-reflection and thus academic achievement
remains largely theoretical. In addition, most of the present studies in the literature
involved only a limited number of participants where students’ reflection journals were
usually rated by teachers and hence any conclusions derived may be overly subjective. To
maximize the validity of our findings, we did not rely on the reflection journals of a
selected, small group of students. Instead, we collected data from 690 first-year students of
a polytechnic, and used an objective analysis by subjecting students’ journal responses to
an automated coding procedure using software (Lew and Schmidt 2011).
Aims of the study
The students in our study repeatedly had to reflect on how and what they have learned as
the semester unfolded, and received continuous feedback from their teachers on their
performances. The purposes of the present study were two-fold: first, to evaluate whether
reflection journal writing was effective in promoting self-reflection and learning, and
whether students become better at self-reflection if they engage continuously in reflection
journal writing. It was hypothesized that self-reflection and academic achievement influ-
enced each other interactively, i.e. students by looking back on how and what they have
learned results in them having better self-reflection skills, which subsequently lead them to
perform better in the classroom or on knowledge acquisition tests. Second, we were
interested to investigate which type of reflection (i.e. self-reflection on how learning took
place and/or what was learned) was more effective in promoting learning and thus aca-
demic achievement. To that end, students’ reflection journals were compared with their
classroom performance and academic test grades for an academic year.
Method
Subjects
Participants included 690 applied science students in their first year of studies at a poly-
technic in Singapore in the academic year 2007–2008. They were enrolled in three-year
science diploma courses such as Biomedical Sciences, Pharmaceutical Sciences and
Biotechnology. Of these students, 426 (62%) were females and 264 (38%) were males, and
their mean age was 17.21 years (SD = 1.28).
Educational context
Problem-based learning
The polytechnic at which the research was carried out organizes its curriculum according
principles of problem-based learning (Schmidt and Moust 2000). Students work collabo-
ratively in teams of four to five, with learning centred on problems relevant to their domain
of study. They work on one problem each day. The problem is initially discussed in the
morning, followed by individual study. At the end of the day, information gathered is
532 M. D. N. Lew, H. G. Schmidt
123

shared and elaborated upon. No didactic teaching takes place nor is there any form of direct
instruction. One tutor supervises the student teams in a larger classroom. His or her role is
to facilitate student learning (Alwis 2007). There are two semesters in an academic year,
with each semester lasting 16 weeks. All the courses offered are part of a three-year
curriculum.
Data collection versus assessment in the curriculum
The daily assessment approach consists of four elements: (1) a classroom performance
grade awarded by the tutor based on how well a student has performed during the day (2)
an activity in which a student assessed his or her own performance for the day, and (3) an
activity in which a student assessed his or her team mates’ performances for the day, and
(4) a reflection journal to be written by each student. The classroom performance grade is
measured based on tutors’ observations of students’ processes of daily learning. The
observations by the tutors include students’ self-directedness, level of participation
inclusive of teamwork; students’ ability to reason, justify and defend opinions and ideas
formulated in respond to problems, as well as their problem solving skills. Tutors will then
award grades ranging from ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘F’’, which are derived based on what they observe and
the impression they have on each student during the duration of time they had with him/
her. Tutors also take into consideration students’ individual reflection journals (short
essays which document students’ reflections on daily learning) and their self and peer
assessments when awarding grades. Furthermore, tutors will provide feedback to students
on their learning outcomes and processes of daily learning.
The reflection journal records a student’s reflections of daily learning in response to a
reflection journal question provided by the tutor. Each student is required to respond to one
journal question per day. The student submits his/her reflection journal electronically by
means of an online platform by the end of the day. Tutor-asked journal questions required
students to be reflective about their learning and development. Some examples of reflection
journal questions include ‘‘Discuss your effectiveness as a team player/leader in solving
the problem today.’’, ‘‘What insights did I gain today?’’, ‘‘How can you apply some of the
skills and knowledge that you have learned?’’, ‘‘What strategies have I used to help me in
my learning?’’ and so on. Students respond to a different reflection journal question each
day during a 5-day workweek. The purpose of writing the reflection journal is to encourage
and record self-reflection about how learning took place and what was learned. Some
examples of students’ journal responses are contained in the appendix section.
Students also need to take four knowledge acquisition tests per module, which are taken
at different points (i.e. after every 3–4 weeks) during the semester. The tests are conducted
in a supervised environment, similar to an end-of-course examination and require students
to answer at least three open-structured questions. Students are tested on their ability to
understand and apply what they have learned. The knowledge acquisition test grades range
from ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘F’’.
Procedure
The classroom performance and knowledge acquisition grades were first converted to
scaled numerical values on a five-point scale. The averages of the knowledge acquisition
grades for that of semesters 1 and 2 were computed and used for the analyses.
Self-reflection and academic performance 533
123

Analysis
The tutor grades were first converted to scaled numerical values on a five-point scale. In
seeking evidence of reflective activities through reflection journal writing, student journals
were analyzed using the SPSS Text Analysis for Survey
TM
software (SPSS 2006). The
software uses advanced linguistic theory technologies that extract and classify key con-
cepts from student journal responses. These technologies analyze content as a set of
phrases and sentences whose grammatical structure provides a context for the meaning of a
response. The software enables the coding and categorization of journal responses in a
fraction of the time required to do the job manually. Another benefit is that the catego-
rization of responses is done consistently and reliably; the responses are analyzed in an
iterative manner. Unlike human coders, the software classifies the same response in the
same categories every time.
The first step in content analysis is to extract key terms and ideas from the journal
responses. The engine uses linguistic algorithms and resources to identify relevant con-
cepts. This means that extraction does not treat a response as a set of unrelated words, but it
identifies key words, compound words, and patterns in the text. Pre-coded definitions were
the linguistic resources used to extract terms from the journal responses.
The extracted terms were grouped into categories by the software. As used in content
analysis, a category refers to a group of closely related concepts, opinions or attitudes. The
software relies upon three linguistic-based techniques that take into account the root
meanings of the extracted terms and their relationship between sets of similar objects or
opinions: term derivation, term inclusion and semantic networks (SPSS 2006, p. 101).
Because these techniques are complementary to one another, all of them are used for
categorizing the extracted terms.
The term derivation technique creates categories by taking a term and finding other
terms that are related to it by analyzing whether any of the terms components are mor-
phologically related. For instance, the term ‘‘opportunities for self-reflection’’ would be
grouped with the term ‘‘self-reflection opportunities’’. The term inclusion technique uses
algorithms to create categories by taking a term and finding other terms that include it.
When determining inclusion, word order and the presence of such words as ‘‘in’’ or ‘‘of’’
are ignored. As illustration, given the term ‘‘skill’’, term inclusion will group terms such as
‘‘programming skills’’ and ‘‘a set of skills’’ in a skill category. The root term used to create
the category (skill) can have words before it, after it, or both before and after (‘‘pro-
gramming skill set’’).
The semantic networks technique creates categories using a semantic/lexical network
based on WordNet
Ò
, a linguistic project based in Princeton University (Miller 2006).
WordNet
Ò
is a reference system of ‘‘Nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs grouped into
sets of cognitive synonyms, each representing one underlying lexical concept.’’ This
method begins by identifying extracted terms that are known synonyms and hyponyms (i.e.
a word that is more specific than the category represented by a term, e.g. student, tutor and
peer are hyponyms of the term ‘‘person’’).
In order to analyze the journal responses in a more meaningful fashion, a custom library
was created. This library contained domain-specific words and terms (with synonyms) that
arose from the modules taken by all first-year students. In this particular institution, all
students were required to take two mathematics and computer applications modules in their
first year of studies. These modules consisted of several tasks which asked students to
create spreadsheets and basic computer programs to perform simple numerical functions.
534 M. D. N. Lew, H. G. Schmidt
123

Using these modules as an example, domain-specific words would include ‘‘visual basics
programming’’, ‘‘Microsoft excel graphs’’, ‘‘spreadsheets’’ etc.
The categories that were automatically generated were also renamed to capture their
essential meanings. The descriptions of the categories obtained are contained in Table 1
(see also Lew and Schmidt 2011).
Table 1 Description of categories generated by means of text analysis software
Category Sub-category Description Examples of reference
studies
Critical review
of past
learning
experiences
Self To look over or examine self-
performance. This includes:
Learning strengths and
weaknesses
Setting or tracking learning goals
Learning styles such as visual,
auditory, and tactile
Lew and Schmidt (2006,
2007, 2011); Moon
(1999)
Peers To look over or examine peers’
performance. This includes:
Team work, and team dynamics,
i.e. cooperativeness and level
of contributions, and
Helping peers with their learning,
or seeking help from peers
Products To look over or study the
products of learning, which
emerged as a result of relating
knowledge structures from text.
This includes:
Domain-specific skills, e.g.:
graph-plotting using Microsoft
Excel, Visual Basics
programming, Microsoft
PowerPoint etc.
Presentation slides, self-created
computer programs, self-
creating Excel accounting
spreadsheets, classroom
performance grades etc.
Learning
strategies
Rehearsal Oral repetition, copying, making
selective verbatim responses
and underlining the important
parts of the material
McCombs and Whistler
(1989); Weinstein and
Mayer (1986)
Organization Categorizing information,
creating knowledge networks
and hierarchies (e.g. mind
maps)
Elaboration Creating analogies or mental
images, generative note taking
and self-questioning
Summaries of
what was
learned
– To relate new information to
prior or existing knowledge;
applicability of knowledge
gained to other situations
Moon (1999); O’Rourke
(1998); Selfe et al.
(1986)
Self-reflection and academic performance 535
123

The outcomes of the text analyses suggest that students appeared to reflect on three
general categories related to their learning in their reflection journals: critical review,
learning strategies, and summaries of what was learned (see Table 1 for description).
Data used were for the analyses were student reflection journals for an entire week
during Week 3 of the first semester and again during Week 14 of the second semester of the
academic year 2007–2008. Data from Week 1 was not considered as it being the start of a
new academic year, a steady state in the student enrolment had yet to be reached as
students were still appealing to enter or change polytechnics. The student enrolment figures
reached a steady state by the second week. Data from weeks 15 and 16 were not considered
because the attendance of students in classes was poor for the last 2 weeks of the academic
year; the number of reflection journals submitted in the last 2 weeks was significantly
lower as compared to that for week 14.
Identical categories were generated for both sets of data. The number of instances which
each category appeared in each student’s journal response was recorded and used for
comparison against students’ performance in class (i.e. classroom performance grades) and
on knowledge acquisition tests.
Results
Table 2 contains the results of the correlational analyses between the frequency counts for
coding categories present in students’ journal responses and their classroom performance
grades for Week 3 of the first semester and Week 14 of the second semester in the
academic year. Weak correlational values (r) were obtained (r ranging from .02 to .27).
The results of the correlational analyses between the frequency counts for coding cat-
egories present in student journal responses and students’ knowledge test grades are
contained in Table 3. Weak to moderately strong correlations were obtained (r ranging
from .02 to .34).
Higher correlations for week 14 were reported as compared to those for week 3. A
method that compares correlations drawn from the same sample as described by Cohen and
Cohen, (1983) was used to test for significant differences between them (p. 57). Results of
the analysis reveal that the differences in the correlations between the coding categories
and classroom performance grades were not statistically significant. Similar findings were
evident between the coding categories and knowledge acquisition test grades. The findings
suggest that the type of reflection (i.e. self-reflection on how learning took place and/or
what was learned) did not matter when it comes to promoting learning and hence academic
achievement in students.
Discussion
The present study was conducted to examine whether a relationship exists between stu-
dents’ abilities to self-reflect and their academic achievement, and if their awareness of
how and what they have learned would improve as they progressed through the course,
engaging in continuous journal keeping. To that end, students’ reflection journals, which
focus on self-reflection on the processes of learning and the knowledge taught, were coded
in an objective fashion, by means of automated content analysis approach using software,
and textual categories generated. Correlational analyses were performed on the textual
categories and students’ classroom performance and knowledge test grades. Data used in
536 M. D. N. Lew, H. G. Schmidt
123

the analyses was collected once at the beginning of the academic year, and again at the end
of the academic year.
Weak correlations were reported between the learning categories generated from
students’ journal responses and their classroom and knowledge acquisition test grades.
The findings also indicate that the type of reflection, i.e. self-reflection on how learning
took place and/or what was learned was no different terms of helping students become
more effective at learning or academic achievement. Although the differences in the
correlations between that of week 3 and week 14 were not statistically significant, one
cannot conclude that no relationship exists between students’ abilities to self-reflect and
their performances in classrooms and on knowledge acquisition tests. Increasing trends in
the correlations were observed in Tables 2 and 3, suggesting that self-reflection was
effective to a small extent in improving student learning, and that students do demon-
strate some growth in self-reflection (as indicated by the higher correlations between
coding categories and academic grades), i.e. their abilities to self-reflect on how and
what they have learned did improved through engaging continuously in reflection journal
writing, although this influence is not manifested to a measureable effect resulting in
improvements in academic performance.
Table 2 Correlations between
frequency counts for coding cat-
egories present in student journal
responses and students’ class-
room performance grades
Week 3 was in semester 1 at the
beginning of academic year
whereas Week 14 was in
semester 2 towards the end of the
academic year
Degrees of freedom = 689
*p\ .01, 2-tailed
Classroom performance grades
Week 3 Week 14
Critical review
Self
Week 3 .03 .02
Week 14 .16* .25*
Peers
Week 3 .04 .04
Week 14 .13* .14*
Products
Week 3 .03 .03
Week 14 .12* .13*
Learning strategies
Rehearsal
Week 3 .13* .09*
Week 14 .25* .27*
Organization
Week 3 .10* .02
Week 14 .12* .14*
Elaboration
Week 3 .08* .13*
Week 14 .11* .15*
Summaries of what was learned
Week 3 .16* .12*
Week 14 .12* .14*
Self-reflection and academic performance 537
123

What are some plausible explanations for these findings? First, there is this possibility
that the weak relationship between self-reflection and academic performance is because
students are generally poor at self-reflection. They simply are not able to reflect on their
own performance and the subject matter taught effectively, for instance, because they have
insufficient access to their own learning process. However, the study by McCrindle and
Christensen (1995) reported that undergraduates in a first-year biology course who kept
reflection journals showed more sophisticated conceptions of learning, greater awareness
of cognitive strategies, and demonstrated the construction of more complex and related
knowledge structures when learning from text, as compared to those who did not engage in
journal keeping. Furthermore, they also performed significantly better on the final exam-
ination for the course. Hence, a general dismissal of the idea that students can be com-
petent self-reflectors may be premature.
A second possibility is that the weak inter-relationship between self-reflection and
academic performance is attributed by the fact students in this particular study who are
somewhat lacking the experience of self-reflecting on how and what they have learned.
Students who took part in the current study could be described as ‘‘inexperienced’’ to some
extent, because they were first-year students in higher education, although they already had
more than 10 years of education behind them. Although some authors (e.g. Mann et al.
Table 3 Correlations between
frequency counts for coding cat-
egories present in student journal
responses and students’ knowl-
edge acquisition grades
Mean values of students’
knowledge acquisition test grades
for semesters 1 and 2 were used
in the correlational analyses
Degrees of freedom = 689
*p\ .01, 2-tailed
Knowledge acquisition test grades
Semester 1 Semester 2
Critical review
Self
Week 3 .02 .04
Week 14 .34* .33*
Peers
Week 3 .09 .11*
Week 14 .25* .28*
Products
Week 3 .19* .19*
Week 14 .11* .12*
Learning strategies
Rehearsal
Week 3 .12* .13*
Week 14 .29* .29*
Organization
Week 3 .07* .08*
Week 14 .14* .15*
Elaboration
Week 3 .11* .13*
Week 14 .16* .15*
Summaries of what was learned
Week 3 .16* .17*
Week 14 .21* .11*
538 M. D. N. Lew, H. G. Schmidt
123

2009; Moon 1999) have suggested that experienced students, i.e. those in their later years
of studies were better at self-reflection as compared to those students in introductory
programs, McCrindle and Christensen (1995) did demonstrate that first-year students in
higher education already have the capacity for self-reflection. Nevertheless, one cannot
exclude the plausibility that the beginning of a new study is not the best moment to
investigate the relationship between self-reflection and academic performance and that the
findings are time-dependent, that is, the results obtained would have been different if
students’ journal responses and grades from other weeks of the academic year were used in
the correlational analyses. Another possibility for the findings could be due to differences
between responses in weeks 3 and 14 may be caused by differences in the tutor-asked
journal questions.
To test of the findings reported are time-dependent, we examined post-hoc the data of
students journal responses written in two other weeks, i.e. week 4 of the first semester and
week 15 of the second semester, and their classroom performance and knowledge acqui-
sition test grades for the second semester. Again, identical textual categories to those
contained in Table 1 were generated. Similar to the results obtained from the data sets from
weeks 3 and 14, test of differences between the mean categorical frequency counts by
means of paired-samples t tests revealed no significant differences (for example, Critical
review (self) = t(689) = 1.54, p \.01; Learning strategies (organization) = t(689) =-
2.75, p \.01; Summaries of what was learned = t(689) = 1.87, p \.01, with degrees of
freedom in parentheses). Furthermore, test of differences in the correlations between the
learning categories and that of classroom performance grades (week 4: r ranging from .03
to .22; week 15: r ranging from .04 to .24) and knowledge test grades (week 4: r ranging
from .03 to .30; week 15: r ranging from .05 to .29) revealed no significant differences
when compared the data sets from weeks 3 and 14. This suggests the measurement stability
of our findings, since the results from content analyses using data from other weeks of the
academic year and the correlations between textual categories and academic grades were
similar to those obtained from the data sets from weeks 3 and 14.
The reader may remember that students write reflection journals in response to a
question by their tutor. These questions differ per day and they also differ between tutors.
To test whether the difference in self-reflection as a function of time was influenced by the
specific tutor-asked questions, we subjected all the questions asked in both weeks 3 and 14
to text analyses using the same content analysis approach of student journal responses. In
total, more than 400 journal questions were asked by approximately 200 tutors involved in
taking the first-year applied science students. Identical categories (e.g. learning strengths
and weaknesses, skills, subject matter etc.) were generated for both data sets. Comparisons
between the means of the frequency counts for the categories by means of paired sample
t tests revealed that none of their differences were statistically significant. Therefore, the
differences in the journal responses in weeks 3 and 14 were not due to differences in the
tutor-asked journal questions.
A third possible explanation for our findings is that although a relationship exists
between self-reflection and academic performance, this is not reflected as an improvement
in students’ classroom performance and knowledge test grades. Moon (1999) and Selfe
et al. (1986) contended that the influence of reflection journal keeping on student academic
performance as being subtle, and did not seem to assist students in attaining better aca-
demic achievement. Instead, journal keeping seems to facilitate student learning in a
number of other ways, among them synthesizing new knowledge about a domain subject
with their prior knowledge and learning, recording of useful strategies in solving problems,
Self-reflection and academic performance 539
123

and in enhancing students’ awareness of their cognitive processes and their control of these
processes.
A final possible explanation for the fairly poor inter-relationship between self-
reflection and academic performance not yet discussed here is that some students simply
do not take the task of journal writing seriously while others perhaps do, leading to weak
correlations between the coding categories and students’ grades. In an earlier study, Lew
and Schmidt (2007) reported that polytechnic students, when presented with the task of
journal writing, became ‘‘strategic’’ in their approach to completing the task. Some
students reported that they wrote their reflection journals in a bid to impress their tutors,
while others were sceptical about the need to reflect on how and what they have learned,
citing reflection journals as ‘‘mechanical and meaningless’’ which were non-beneficial to
their learning.
Conclusion
These deliberations lead us to the conclusion that, generally, students’ abilities to self-
reflect on how and what they have learned did improved through engaging continuously
in reflection journal writing, although this influence was not manifested to a measurable
effect which leads to improvements in academic performance. Our study also suggests
that self-reflection skill cannot be easily learned through extended experience and the
provision of continuous feedback from their tutors. There is an underlying assumption
in the literature that students who are better at self-reflection, perform better academ-
ically. To date, there is no finding to refute or support this assumption. Such a finding
may suggest that curricular interventions to teach self-reflection are futile, and should
be abandoned. However, the literature reveals that self-reflection does improve learning
in other ways (see Mann et al. 2009; Moon 1999), although it cannot be measured
using academic achievement. The findings from the present study are to a large extent,
in agreement with what Moon (1999) and Selfe et al. (1986) argue about the positive
effect of self-reflection as not necessarily measured by achievement test grades.
However, the results from existing studies were more subjective, since they involved
manual coding of student journal responses. Further, existing studies did not include
comparison of findings over time, casting some doubts over the reliability and validity
of their results.
The present study has sought ways in arriving at more reliable and valid measure-
ments. We did not rely on single reflection journals of students and had adopted an
automated coding procedure to analyse the responses. As such, the problem of inter-
coder reliability was absent. Contrary to most studies in journal writing with limitations
such as small sample size, non-continuous engagement in the task of writing journals or
infrequent feedback given by teachers, we collected data from over 600 first-year applied
science students. Furthermore, in this context, students engaged continuously in the task
of journal writing and receive timely and regular feedback on their learning from their
tutors. Though the provision of such continuous feedback may have created optimal
conditions for enhancing students’ awareness of how and what they have learned, this is
not translated into better achievement on classroom performance and knowledge test
grades.
540 M. D. N. Lew, H. G. Schmidt
123

Limitations
Some limitations should however, be noted. A shortcoming of the present study is the
partial overlap of the instruments used: reflection journal, tutor judgment and knowledge
acquisition test, which may have produced, in part, the weak to moderate correlations
between the coding categories and academic grades. A study employing identical instru-
ments for should certainly be conducted to verify our findings.
The text analysis software is not a panacea, and although using software to perform
content analysis removes inter-coder reliability as a concern, it is not without its short-
comings. In human coding, the coders read the responses and can capture all the nuances of
a statement even if they face difficulties applying the coding categories. The software can
apply the coding categories, but they need to be defined so that the nuances are captured.
An implication arising from this is that the editing done by the researchers of the synonyms
and excluded words in the various libraries must accurately capture the ideas of the
respondents in the text. Another limitation of the software is that it will not capture all the
information in the journal responses, although categories can be created easily without any
intervention on the part of the researchers.
Further research
Based on the findings, two studies are suggested for future. First, given the range of
students’ aptitude and ability to cope with, and respond to, the task of reflecting on their
own learning and performance, the focus on individual students and their strengths and
weaknesses should constitute the next stage of research in better understanding the nature
and operation of self-reflection on academic performance in higher education. The gath-
ering of detailed empirical evidence which may cast light on those characteristics and
factors which could account for individual differences in student self-reflection skill is one
key area for further research.
Second, further research should investigate if students’ self-reflection skills can be
improved through formal training. Extended experience alone, as our study has demon-
strated, is clearly not enough to affect change. Mann et al. (2009) recommend that as with
other skills, learners may need a structure to guide the complex process of self-reflection
on the content and process of their learning. They contend that guidance and supervision
are vital to helping students become better at self-reflection. Through a more structured and
closely guided process, students may become better aware of, and value their existing
capability for, self-reflection, and its potential for development and application.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Republic Polytechnic, Singapore, which made the data
collection and management possible.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncom-
mercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Appendix
See Table 4.
Self-reflection and academic performance 541
123

Table 4 Examples of students’ reflection journals to illustrate the different textual categories generated by means of software
Student Reflection journal
question
Reflection journal response Textual
categories
A Discuss your
effectiveness as a
team player/leader
in solving the
problem today
I think I have completed my tasks as a team member and did well in my team today. Besides me, my team members
have also worked well on the problem today. We co-operated and accomplished our distributed tasks. Besides, we
understood the problem together and explained to each other when one of us met some problems. In the beginning, I
did not know what actually we want to find out after read the problem statement. After discuss with my team members
and the facilitator, I understood and found that I have learned before in my previous school which is the topic of
isomerism. Then, we discussed together and tried to solve out the problem. Firstly, we distributed the works to each
other and did the research. I completed my reaching and finished my slides. After that, I explained to my team
members what I have done. At the same time, they also let me see their researching and explained to me when I did
not understand. This led us to understand the information what we have found out of today’s problem. Therefore, I felt
that we have tried our best to do well in our presentation with the sufficient information
In conclusion, I think the team work is the most important to make the team solve out the problem effectively. Sharing
ideas is the process for us to solve the problems. ‘‘No man is an island’’. I think this saying goes is very correct
Critical review
of past
learning
experiences
B How can you apply
some of the skills
and knowledge that
you have learned?
Today, I have learned about the different types of isomers and according to our research, isomer is categorised into
structural and stereo. From structural it is than further broken down into skeletal, positional and functional and stereo
is broken down into geometrical and optical. Also, about what chiral centre is. It means that 1 carbon atom attached to
4 different atoms. So in this case, to me, a chiral centre is like we working together in a group whereby there is 1
person who is the leader to lead the team and the rest of the 4 members who follows what the leader instruct to do.
Thus, in order to work well in the team there must be a responsible leader and 4 other members who are willing to
follows what the leader says and this is same as saying that there is no chiral centre if either 1 is not present. All these
above are knowledge which I have never learned before and a new challenge to me. I have learned to find these
resources in a more effective manner whereby typing the exact keyword so that the points which I found would not be
out of point. Furthermore, being team with friends or people whom I am more comfortable working with, I am more
confident speaking what I wanted to say clearly, ask questions which warrant further investigation. At the same time it
builds up my confident level and also giving more suggestions and ideas to the team so as to improve my contribution
in the team. Also, I am more interested in what I am doing and will be able to contribute more and effectively
In conclusion, I realized that working in a team we need to build good relationship with people so as to accomplish our
work more efficiently, we will have an enjoyable working environment and also able to produce a more productivity
work. So, I will apply what I have realized in future module in speaking up when I am in doubt, listening and valuing
what others have to say and also suggesting a hypothesis or a possible solution built on the ideas of the group so as to
improve the group as a whole to become a better one
Critical review
of past
learning
experiences
542 M. D. N. Lew, H. G. Schmidt
123

Table 4 continued
Student Reflection journal
question
Reflection journal response Textual
categories
C ‘‘The development of
science and
technology is the
panacea to all our
environmental
problems.’’ What is
your view of this
statement?
I strongly disagree that the development of science and technology is the panacea to all our environmental problems.
This is because the development of Science and Technology bring a lot of disadvantages to our environment and it
causes more problems to our environment. The development of Science involved using a lot of chemical product.
Indirectly, the development of science and technology causes acid rain. Acid rain occurs when these gases react in the
atmosphere with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form various acidic compounds. Sunlight increases the rate of
most of these reactions. The result is a mild solution of sulphuric acid and nitric acid. Acid rain accelerates the decay
of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s
cultural heritage. Besides, It benefits people in some way, but alters our environment in some other way (like affecting
other species, degrading some physical property of our environment). Nuclear energy and environmental pollutants
most certainly fall into this topic
Summaries of
what was
learned
D What insights did you
gain today?
In chemistry, there are many complicating terms for us to study and thus i find it necessary to memorize such terms as in
science, alot of properties and reactions and terms have many links between one another and therefore there is a need
to memorize all these terms starting from the simplest basic formula and terms to the most complicating one as there
is a need to apply them when solving the most difficult question. You will need to work out the simplest method and
terms slowly then u can get the end formula and answer to it. Therefore, I think it is necessary to memorize such terms
as it is very useful in the need to apply it when doing the questions especially the difficult ones. However, I think that
understanding the whole term is absolutely better than memorizing as if you understand the term rather than
memorizing it only, you would tend to make lesser mistakes as you already have the knowledge of it. Like for
example, in science, one formula may just differ from one another by a digit or an alphabet which could then leads to
a totally different term together. Thus, apart from memorizing, understanding terminologies is also much needed
Summaries of
what was
learned
E What strategies have I
used to help me in
my learning?
I have used a number of strategies to help me in my learning. The first strategy is repetition, in which I will I will re-read
the content to clarify an area of confusion. I believe that when I revise the notes a few times, I will be able to pick out
information that I had missed or failed to understand in class. This way I can assess my own understanding level.
There is also another strategy in which I firm a term or acronym that’s familiar and helps me put the content into a
realistic setting. This has also helped me to improve my grades for my understanding tests. Another strategy I used
visuals and pictures to help me learn the contents better. I use mind maps and graphs to understand the big picture,
compare use of information and recall a section in the course
Learning
strategies
Self-reflection and academic performance 543
123

Table 4 continued
Student Reflection journal
question
Reflection journal response Textual
categories
F What learning
strategies did you
use to help you
answer the problem
today?
In order to help me answer the problem today, I keep a notebook where I copy down any important information that was
being taught by the tutor. I prefer to write my own notes so that it helps me to memorize the information. I would try
to link whatever I do not know to what I know. I try to learn how were the problem given or the information given was
related to what I have learnt in secondary school. I would use thing I have found on the internet like visuals, graphs,
images and information to what I was taught or given and through this, I would be able to learn. Lastly, I would try to
create analogies to help me remember what was taught. I am weak in my Biology, so I will create my own analogies.
For example, a gene is like an instruction manual that teaches someone how to build something, and the genotype is
the text inside the manual
Learning
strategies
544 M. D. N. Lew, H. G. Schmidt
123

References
Alwis, W. A. M. (2007). Pedagogical beliefs and institutional practices at Republic Polytechnic. Paper
presented at the Keynote presentation at the 2nd international symposium on PBL: Reinventing PBL,
Singapore.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan
Page.
Chirema, K. D. (2007). The use of reflective journals in the promotion of reflection and learning in post-
registration nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 27(3), 192–202.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behaviorial sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dewey, J. (1991). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books (Originally published: Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath, 1910).
Gleaves, A., Walker, C., & Grey, J. (2008). Using digital and paper diaries for assessment and learning
purposes in higher education: A case of critical reflection or constrained compliance? Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 219–231.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psy-
chology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Lew, M. D. N., & Schmidt, H. G. (2006). Reflection upon learning between theory and practice: A focus-
group study of tutors’ and students’ perceptions. The Netherlands: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Lew, M. D. N., & Schmidt, H. G. (2007). Reflecting on practice: The use of journals at a problem-based
learning school in Singapore. Poster presented at the 2nd international symposium on PBL: Rein-
venting PBL, Singapore. Paper presented at the Reinventing PBL, Singapore.
Lew, M. D. N., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Writing to learn: Can reflection journals be used to promote self-
reflection and learning? Higher Education Research and Development (in press).
Mann, K., Gordon, J., et al. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: A
systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(4), 595–621.
McCombs, B. L., & Whistler, J. S. (1989). The role of affective variables in autonomous learning. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 24(3), 277–306.
McCrindle, A. R., & Christensen, C. A. (1995). The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and
cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction, 5, 167–185.
Miller, G. A. (2006). WordNet: A lexical database for the English language (Version 3.0). NJ: Princeston
University.
Moon, J. A. (1999). A handbook of reflective and experiental learning. London: Routledge.
O’Rourke, R. (1998). The learning journal: From chaos to coherence. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 23(4), 403–413.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanism of a neglected
phenomenon. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 113–142.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (2000). Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of the
literature. In D. H. E. C. H. Hmelo (Ed.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning
interactions (pp. 19–52). NJ Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah.
Selfe, C. L., Petersen, B. T., & Nahrgang, C. L. (1986). Journal writing in mathematics. In A. Y. T. Fulwiler
(Ed.), Writing across the disciplines (pp. 192–207). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
SPSS, I. (2006). SPSS text analysis for SurveysTM 2.0 user guide. IL: Chicago.
Thorpe, K. (2004). Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice. Reflective Practice, 5(3),
327–343.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.
Self-reflection and academic performance 545
123