The Relationship between Reflection Performance and Learning Performance with
Learners Using Web-Based Portfolio
Chi-Cheng Chang & Ju-Shih Tseng
Dept. of Technology Application & Human Resources Development
National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan,
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between reflection
performance and learning performance with learners using web-based portfolio. The participants
were 45 eighth graders randomly selected from computer classes at a middle school in Taiwan.
The reflection performance in this study included frequency of reviewing peers' reflections, time
spending on reading peers' reflections and grade for reflection, whereas the learning
performance included project, test and attitude. The result revealed that (a) frequency of
reviewing peers' reflections had a significantly positive relationship with attitude; (b) time
spending on reading peers' reflections had significantly positive relationships with project and
attitude; and (c) grade for reflection was significantly positive correlated with project and
attitude. Overall, among the three aspects of learning performance, attitude had the strongest
relationship with reflection performance following by project and test, respectively.
The development of portfolio included five stages, which were purpose, collection, selection, reflection and
presentation (Falls, 2001; Lopez-Fernandez & Rodriguez-Illera 2009). During the development of portfolios, learners
would have to set a learning goal, reflect on their learning and explain reasons that they put certain works into the
portfolio, which were the keys for reflection. So, one of advantages for portfolio assessment was the enhancement of
learners’ reflections (Coombe & Barlow, 2004; Barrett, 2010; Barrett & Garrett, 2009). Falls (2001) believed that
reflection was a necessary activity for the development of learning portfolio because it was helpful for both learners
and instructors. Tomkinson (2002) thought that reflection, review, response and record were a four-stage cycle for the
process of reflection. Therefore, reflection was an important stage for the development of learning portfolios.
Reckase (2002) mentioned that learners were in a process of reflection when they were making decisions on
what information to put into portfolios. The evaluation of portfolios helps learners to reflect. For learners, reflection
was the major difference between learning portfolio and data book. A learning portfolio without reflection was
merely a form of data book (Chang, 2000; Santos, 1997). Wang (2009) from perspective of pedagogy, also argued
that besides students’ participation in selecting context for portfolio and explanations for evaluation rubric,
self-reflection were the most important stage for the whole learning process. Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000)
proposed nine characteristics for portfolio assessment and emphasized that the importance of reflection was that
learners could think deeply about what they had learned (Coombe & Barlow, 2004).
Based on the above mentioned perspectives, reflection did not merely help learners to review their own
learning progress, but also retrace their own learning experiences in order to find out an appropriate learning method
for themselves and to enhance their learning ability. Hence, a learning portfolio without reflection would make
portfolio assessment become meaningless. Moreover, teachers should teach learners how to reflect, recognize
strengths of a project and understand their own and peers’ learning progresses during the process of creating learning
portfolios (Danielson & Abrutyn, 1997; Tubaishat, Lansari, & Al-Rawi, 2009). Evidence showed that the
development of web-based learning portfolio was a real process that facilitated learners to reflect (Avrramidou &
Zembal-Saul, 2002; Milman, 1999; Morris & Buckland, 2000; Zembal-Saul, 2001). Hawkes and Romiszowski (2001)
found that instructors who reflected via computer would have a higher level of reflection than instructors who
With regard to the correlation between reflection and learning performance, for example, (a) learners who
reflected more outperformed learners who reflected less (Cheng, 2002); (b) freshmen in department of nursing at an
university with better reflection performance had better learning performance (Murphy, 2004); and (c) the more one
reflected, the better learning performance one had (Gama, 2004). Furthermore, pre-service teachers who reflected
thoroughly would understand knowledge and conception deeply (Avrramidou & Zembal-Saul, 2002) because
reflection had a significantly positive relationship with self-efficacy toward learning (Yancey, 2001). Regarding the
correlation of reflection with affection, attitude and metacognition, students who reflected more had a better ability in
inference, which enhanced their communications with peers and instructors (Costa & Kallick, 2001). Learners who
performed well in reflection would also performed well in searching information (Saito & Miwa, 2007), time
management and knowledge management (Gama, 2004).
The study results discussed above were the advantages for reflection. However, there were only few studies
about learning performance assessing through test and project. Most related studies were about comparisons of
learning performance with and without reflections. There was no study in examining the relationship between quality
and depth of reflection and learning performance. The studies mentioned above were the learning outcome from
traditional instructions, not the learning results from the implementation of learning portfolios. After the assessment
of reflection performance, the relationship between reflection performance and learning performance could be
examined by statistics. Reflection performance could be assessed and classified, as unqualified, qualified, good or
outstanding (Morgan, 1999), based on its purposes, supports, systematicness, sentence structures, expressions and
writing skills (King-Shaver, 1999). For instance, Rama and Battistoni (2001) believed that frequency of reflection
and time spending on reflection were predictors for learners’ learning performance. Hence, besides evaluating the
context of reflections, frequency of reviewing peers’ reflections and time spending on reading peers' reflections could
also be taken into consideration when evaluating learners’ reflection performance in the web-based portfolio
assessment. Therefore, whether learners’ reflection performance was significantly related to learning performance in
the web-based portfolio assessment was an issue for this study.
According to the research background and motivation, the purpose of this study was to examine the
relationship between reflection performance and learning performance with learners in web-based portfolio
assessment. The research questions were shown as the following:
1. Whether frequency of reviewing peers’ reflections was significantly related to learning performance (project,
test and attitude)?
2. Whether time spending on reading peers’ reflections was significantly related to learning performance (project,
test and attitude)?
3. Whether grade for reflection was significantly related to learning performance (project, test and attitude)?
Web-Based Learning Portfolio and Online Reflection
The main functions for the web-based student portfolio system, proposed by Younes (2004), included saving,
presenting and reflecting were similar to students’ learning progress from their entrance to graduation. On the other
hand, the web-based portfolio assessment system, proposed by Kuo (2007), was mainly used to support the
evaluation and development of learning portfolios. The reflection outline was provided by the system as a basis for
learners to write reflections. Instructors could evaluate students’ reflections and provide feedbacks, whereas students
could assess their own reflections and peers’ reflections by providing feedbacks and criticisms. The record for
reflective behavior included frequency of reviewing peers’ reflections, time spending on reviewing peers’ reflections
and grade for reflection. These data would be recorded automatically by the system, and grade for reflection would
be the average from student, peers and instructors.
The functions, such as detailed guidelines and explanations for creating portfolios, learning objectives,
submissions of works, appropriate assessing rubrics, presentations of outstanding works and instructor assessments,
were included in the web-based portfolio assessment environment. However, learners’ reflections about their own
learning progresses and learning activities, such as learning journals, peer discussions, peer assessments, self
assessments and dialogs between instructors and learners, should also be included in the web-based portfolio
assessment environment to facilitate students to reflect (Eppink, 2002). Online reflection could be considered as a
necessary activity for web-based learning portfolio. For example, a study proposed by Grant et. al. (2007)
emphasized on the reflective activities through portfolio assessment with freshmen in a medical school. The
advantages for online reflection included cultivating writing habit with thinking, facilitating ability to reflect
(Costello, 2002；Zembal-Saul, 2001), convenience for learners to write, save, modify, inquiry, surf and model,
tacking data about frequency of reflection automatically, and convenience for instructors and learners to check,
review and compare. Therefore, online reflection was not only convenient for learners to reflect, but also helpful to
Effects of Reflection
In connection with the enhancement of learning performance, a study result with juniors in a medial school
revealed that reflection could enhance students’ performance in clinical diagnosis skills (Blatt, 2007). Davis (2000)
pointed out that learners who reflected during learning would perform well since reflection could make them review,
test and modify the existing thoughts and help them to connect these thoughts with knowledge in order to possess
better comprehension with structures. In sum, reflection would facilitate academic achievement (tests),
comprehensive performance and quality of works, etc.
Regarding the effect of reflection on affection, attitude and metacognition, Masui and De Corte (2005) found
that participants who were freshmen in a college of business in the experimental group with reflection activity
significantly outperformed the control group and had better self-regulation. King-Shaver (1999) mentioned that
learners could be responsible to their own learning behavior by understanding their own strengths and weaknesses
toward learning. Fall (2001) further pointed out that reflection was beneficial to both learners and instructors because
instructors would be able to observe learners’ learning progress and learning status through the reflections written by
learners. Besides, the cultivation of reflective behavior could also enhance learning ability, improve learning attitude
and facilitate thinking ability. For example, Wickstrom (1998) employed learning portfolios to enhance students’
ability in reflection. Thus, reflection could enhance students’ self-regulated learning ability, learning skill, learning
attitude, thinking ability and metacognitive performance, and allow them to recognize their strengths and weaknesses
In summary, the effect of reflection could be examined from different aspects. The present study examined the
effect of reflection by projects, which were necessary to learning portfolios, tests, which represented learning
performance, and attitudes, which presented learners’ metacognitive ability.
Assessment of Reflection
Rama and Battistoni (2001) thought that learners should consider several keys when they doing reflection,
including learning outcome, frequency of reflection, time spending on reflection, ways to reflect, feedback and grade
for reflection. Reckase (2002) asserted that there were three main points for the enhancement of reflection, which
were (a) how much effort one had put; (b) what did one get; and (c) what could one do. Whitfield (2000) also
provided some keys for learners to reflect, including (a) what behavior was right; (b) why the behavior was correct;
(c) how such circumstance to be maintained; (d) why the wrong behavior appear? (e) how such situation to be
improved; and (f) what the next step was. A study, by Wu (2007), showed that the best evidence for learners’
reflection included (a) reflection and abstract after reading articles; (b) reports for gains, weaknesses and
self-development plan; (c) comments on peers’ performance and self expectations; and (d) records for feedbacks
received from learning progress.
King-Shaver (1999) explained that keys for reflection, supports from evidences, clear logics, appropriate
sentences, powerful expressions and smooth writings were the six aspects for assessing reflections. Professors in
South Brunswick Schools in New Jersey utilized these assessing rubrics to evaluate learners’ writing on reflection
during the development of learning portfolios. However, the assessment with an emphasis on writing skills resulted
in a bias because it tended to benefit those with good writing ability, meaning that they would have a better grade on
reflection. The most weakness of the study was the lack of review on learning result, learning progress, learning
attitude and peer feedback. Costa and Kallick (2000) mentioned four important elements for assessing learners’ deep
reflections included (a) descriptions of learning events, as the first item mentioned by King-Shaver; (b) examples and
discussions, as the second item mentioned by King-Shaver; (c) connections to other learning experiences; and (d)
improvements based on those learning experiences.
Overall, the rubric for assessment of reflection included frequency of reflection, time spending on reflection,
writing skills, quality of content, etc. Quality of content consisted of learning outcome, amount of efforts, gains,
positive performance, reasons for negative behavior, ways to improve, weakness, peers’ comments, focus of content,
evidence and example, and learning experience. The reflection performance in the present study would be assessed
according to the integration of the above mentioned rubrics, such as reflections toward learning performance and
feedbacks, and reflections in learning portfolios, such as reflections on learning objectives and peers’ performance.
Moreover, the reflection performance recorded by the database of the portfolio assessment system, including
frequency of reviewing peers’ reflections and time spending on reviewing peers’ reflections, was also an item for
reflection performance, which met the features of web-based learning portfolios.
Participants in the present study were 45 eighth graders taking a computer course in a junior high school, with
24 males and 21 females. Students created learning portfolios, including learning objective, writing, online
submission and presentation of project, and engaged in activities, such as self assessment and peer assessment,
through web-based portfolio assessment system. The experiment took about 10 weeks, and two classes per week.
There were two units in the course, which were computer flash and timeline control. Participants were required to
complete a computer project in each unit through Photoimpact and Dreamweaver MX, respectively. These two units
involved with skill, cognition and affection, implying that learners would be able to reflect while designing flashes.
The present study retrieved learners’ reflection performance from the back-end database of the web-based
portfolio assessment system. Pearson’s Correlation Analysis was employed to examine the relationship between
reflection performance and learning performance, including project, test and attitude). Learners’ learning portfolios
would be further examined in order to double check the result from statistics. The variables in the present study were
shown as the following:
1. Reflection performance, a combination of quantity and quality. Quantity consisted of frequency of reviewing
peers’ reflections and time spending on reading peers’ reflections, whereas quality included grade for reflection
based on its strength and weakness.
2. Learning performance, including grades on project, test and learning attitude. Grades on projects and learning
attitudes, such as affection, feelings and interactions, were the average grade for the course, which were
evaluated by the web-based portfolio assessment system. Grade on test represented students’ achievement after
complete the course, based on paper-and-pencil test.
Procedure and Activity
There were four stages, as shown in Table 1, in the experiment, which were described as the following.
1. Stage I (Preparation): Before the implementation of the web-based portfolio assessment system, the instructor
was required to explain the idea, meaning, assessing method and writing about reflection in learning portfolio to
learners. Furthermore, the instructor was also required to interpret the course to learners, including
demonstrating the system and the portfolio assessment. Lastly, learners were allowed to use the system in order
to understand its functions.
2. Stage II (Unit One): The instructor started the course with Unit One, Computer Flash, by using the web-based
portfolio assessment system. Learners could participate in any activities through the web-based portfolio
assessment system after the class. For example, learners could create their own learning portfolios, observe
peers’ portfolios, assess their own or peers’ works and discuss online by filling in the forms, such as defining
learning objectives, submitting projects and writing reflections. The process was so-called portfolio assessment.
The outline reflection was shown in Figure 1, which could be a reference for learners to write reflections.
Additionally, instructors and online tutors would grade learners learning performance according to their
portfolios and online behaviors.
3. Stage III (Unit Two): The instructor continued the instruction with Unit Two (timeline control) and had learners
to review the activities in Stage II. Before this stage, the instructor was required to help learners out with the
problems that had faced in Stage II, including defining learning objectives, writing about reflection, submitting
works, self assessing, peer assessing and using portfolio assessment, by further guiding and explaining.
4. Stage IV (Oral Presentation): Learners were required to have an oral presentation with their portfolios and share
their thoughts toward the development of portfolios.
Table 1. Procedures and learning activities in the experiment
Stage Week Target Activity
1. Preparing for the course and its learning activities
in the web-based portfolio assessment system.
2. Introducing students to the concept and assessing
methods of learning portfolios and writing skills for
3. Introducing students to the course.
4. Demonstrating the operation of the system.
5.Introducing students to the use of the portfolio
assessment and the keys to assess.
1. Learning the concepts and assessing methods of
learning portfolios and writing skills for reflection.
2. Having a try on the use of the system.
3. Learning how to use the portfolio assessment.
1 .Starting the course with Unit One, Computer
Flash, through the use of the system.
2. Re-explaining keys for assessment and guiding
students to use portfolio assessment.
1. Creating learning portfolios through the
web-based portfolio assessment system, with
different activities including defining learning
Student objectives, submitting works and writing reflections.
2. Uploading works in both beginning and middle
stage of the course and modified works.
1. Enabling the function of the reminder for
II reminding students to submit their works.
(Unit One) Instructor
2. Grouping students for peers' assessment.
Submitting modified works if one had not turned in
1. Reviewing students' learning portfolios.
2. Reviewing students' online participation and
1. Reviewing peers' learning portfolios.
Student 2. Self-assessing.
3. Anonymous peer assessing by groups.
1. Starting the course with Unit Two, Timeline
2. Re-explaining keys for assessment and guiding
Instructor students to use portfolio assessment.
3. Helping students out with the problems that had
faced in Stage II and providing more guidance and
Student Same as Stage II
Instructor Same as Stage II
Student Same as Stage II
Instructor Same as Stage II
Student Same as Stage II
IV 1. Hosting the session for students' oral
(Oral Presentation) presentations
2. Grading portfolios for overall performance and
Presenting learning portfolios in the class and
sharing thoughts for portfolio creation.
Web-based portfolio assessment
The web-based portfolio assessment, proposed by Wu (2007), was employed in the present study. The scale
evaluated students’ learning performance from their learning portfolios, including learning objectives, projects and
reflections. There were six aspects in the scale, which were portfolio creation, learning objectives, project, reflection
and learning attitude. The total score for portfolio assessment was the scores from the six aspects. Learners’ learning
performance was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale with scoring options from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).
The reflection assessment scale in the portfolio assessment scale was used to evaluate learners’ reflections.
There were six aspects in the assessment, which were reflections on learning objectives, works, learning achievement,
learning attitudes, peers’ performance and feedback. Learners’ reflection performance was graded by the online
assessment, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Reflection assessment in portfolio assessment
The reliability coefficient of the measures of reflection in Unit One was .819 and Unit Two was .864, as
measured by Cronbach’s α, which was close to the analysis by Wu (2007) with the reliability coefficient of .919 for
the pilot study and .923 for the study, meaning that the scale possessed high reliability.
The expert validity for the portfolio assessment scale was established through literature review and reviewed
by experts. The cumulative variance of the factors in the scale was 72.09%, implying that the scale had high validity
(Wu, 2007). The appropriateness and accuracy of the scale was examined by the Principle Component Analysis
(PCA) with a Varimax rotation, as shown in Table 2. The value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure
of sampling adequacy (KMO) of the analysis was in the approved range from 0.7 to 1.0, indicating that the sample
size was sufficient for the factor analysis. Since the cumulative variance of the factors for the two units examined by
the PCA were greater than 70%, the reflection assessment scale possessed a satisfactory validity.
Table 2. Factor analysis of reflection assessment scale
Stages KMO Explained Accumulated Variance (%)
Unit One 0.98 84.51
Unit Two 0.88 81.06
There were 10 multiple-choice questions in the test for measuring learners’ understanding level toward the
course. The reliability coefficient of the measures of the test was .71, as measured by Cronbach’s α, implying a
satisfactory reliability with consistency. The item analysis showed that there were significant difference between high
score group and low score group by the t test (p < 0.001), indicating that items in the test would be able to
discriminate students with different levels. The Pearson Correlations was conducted to examine the consistency of
items in the test. The result revealed that coefficients for the test was .38, which was significant (p < 0.001), meaning
that items in the test were consistent with the test.
Result and Discussion
Pearson Correlations was performed for verifying the relationship between frequency of reviewing peers’
reflection and learning performance. The analysis indicated that frequency of reviewing peers’ reflections was
significantly positive related to attitude, but insignificantly correlated with project and test, as shown in Table 3. The
better the attitude was, the more the frequency of reviewing peers’ reflections. Among the three aspects of learning
performance, attitude had the highest correlation coefficient followed by project and test.
Table 3. Relationship between reflection performance and learning performance
Coefficients (level of significance)
Frequency of reviewing peers' Time spending on reviewing peers’
Performance Grade on reflection
Project 0.248 (0.185) 0.364 (0.049*) 0.368 (0.048*)
Test 0.189 (0.317) 0.178 (0.348) 0.295 (0.114)
Attitude 0.465 (0.010*) 0.371 (0.044*) 0.462 (0.010*)
Pearson Correlations was performed for verifying the relationship between time spending on reviewing peers’
reflection and learning performance. The analysis showed that time spending on reviewing peers’ reflection was
significantly positive related to attitude and project, but insignificantly correlated with test, as shown in Table 3. The
better the attitude and project were, the more the time spending on reviewing peers’ reflection. Among the three
aspects of learning performance, attitude had the highest correlation coefficient followed by project and test.
Pearson Correlations was performed for verifying the Relationship between grade on reflection and learning
performance. The analysis indicated that grade on reflection was significantly positive related to attitude and project,
but insignificantly correlated with test, as shown in Table 3. Among the three aspects of learning performance,
attitude had the highest correlation coefficient followed by project and test.
Regarding the relationships between the three aspects of reflection performance and the three aspects of
learning performance, frequency of reviewing peers’ reflection was significantly correlated with attitude, whereas
time spending on reviewing peers’ reflection and grade on reflection were significantly related to attitude and project,
as shown in Table 4.
With regard to the correlation coefficient between reflection performance and the three aspects of learning
performance, attitude had the highest correlation coefficient followed by project and test. Attitude was significantly
related to the three aspects of reflection performance. Project was significantly correlated with the two aspects of
reflection performance. Test had no significant relationship with reflection performance. Overall, reflection
performance was most related to attitude, followed by project and test.
Table 4. Correlation coefficient and significance between reflection and learning performance
Significance / Correlation Coefficients
Project Test Attitude
Frequency of reviewing peers' reflection N/2 N/3 */1
Time spending on reviewing peers'
*/2 N/3 */1
Grade on reflection */2 N/3 */1
N: no correlation; *p<0.05; **p<0.001; 1, 2, 3: from high degree to low degree
Students who reviewed peers’ reflection more times or spend more time on reviewing peers’ reflection would
understand more about peers’ learning progress, which would be helpful to their own learning. In other words,
students who spend more time on reviewing peers’ reflection would have more opportunities to inspect and learn
from each other’s project, which would help them to improve their quality of work. Therefore, it was justifiable that
frequency of and time spending on reviewing peers’ reflection had a significantly positive relationship with learning
performance, as a learner wrote in his reflection:
“Reading from peers’ reflection is more or less helpful to me. After knowing peers’ reflection about their
learning, I will also think about my learning to see if there is anything needs to be improved. Sometimes, when I
review their reflections on their projects, I will also think about ways to improve my project.”
On the other hand, students with better learning attitude reviewed more and spent more times on peers’
reflections, and the relationship was significant, as a student mentioned in his learning portfolio:
“It is great that teacher allows us to review on peers’ reflections. At the very beginning, I do not really know
how to write a reflection and I am not sure what to write for it. After reviewing peers’ reflections, I pretty understand
how to write. Some classmates’ reflections are very touching. Since teacher allows us to review each other’s
reflection, we should take this opportunity to review more on others’ reflections. This is also a positive learning
attitude. However, I know some classmates who are passive will review less on peers’ reflection. They said that they
do not have time to review, but I think they are just passive.”
Reflection refers to making a self examination toward one’s own learning. A detailed reflection would be
helpful to one’s learning, so the content of reflection was significantly positive related to project and attitude, which
was understandable. This result was consistent with other study results. Portfolio assessment could enhance students’
self reflection and facilitate the development of metacognition (Eppink, 2002). Students in the experimental group
with reflection activity reflected more and performed better than students in the control group without reflection
activity (Cheng, 2002). Reflection would enhance teachers’ understanding toward knowledge and concepts
(Avrramidou & Zembal-Saul, 2002) and allow students to review and modify their original thoughts for producing
better works (Davis, 2000). The better the content of reflection was, the better the quality of reflection was, as a
learner stated in his learning portfolio:
“When I write reflection, I will think about whether my learning, project, learning attitude and grade on test
need to be improved. After the reflection has been done, I sometimes will try to improve myself according to my
reflection, in order to make me to perform better than before. Thus, reflection is more or less helpful to my learning.”
On the other hand, the better the learning attitude and project were, the better the reflection was, and the
relationship was significant, as a student mentioned in his learning portfolio:
“I do not know what is appropriate to write in the reflection. Although teacher has told us how to write and
what to write and allowed us to review on peers’ reflections, I am still unable to understand the main point.
Classmates with better learning attitude write their reflections carefully and seriously, which I should follow. After
reviewing peers’ reflections, I have found that classmates who are active perform better in reflections. I think I have
to perform well in my reflection too because teacher and peers would think about me according to it. Cheer up! I will
continue to work hard.”
Conclusions and Implications
There were several crucial conclusions in the present study, including (a) frequency of and time spending on
reviewing peers’ reflection had significantly positive relationship with attitude; (b) time spending on reviewing peers’
reflection had significantly positive correlations with project and attitude; and (c) grade on reflection had
significantly positive relationship with project and attitude. In other words, (a) students who spent more time on
reviewing peers’ reflection performed better in project; (b) students who had better content in reflection had better
performance in project; and (c) students who had better learning attitude reviewed more and spent more time on
peers’ reflections and performed better in project. With regard to correlation coefficients between the three aspects of
reflection performance and the three aspects of learning performance, reflection performance had the highest
coefficient with attitude followed by project and then test. The conclusions about reflection performance and learning
performance summarized by the present study could be a reference for future researchers and instructors worked in
the field related to the web-based portfolio assessment. The present study found that learners’ reflection skills could
be enhanced by the web-based portfolio assessment, which would make learners become a reflection practitioner in
The present study also found that frequency of reviewing peers’ reflection had significantly positive correlation
with attitude, and time spending on reviewing peers’ reflection had significantly positive relationships with project
and attitude. However, since frequency and time for learners to review peers’ reflections were less, learners were
encouraged to review more and spend more time on peers’ reflection in order to facilitate their performance in
project and learning attitude. On the other hand, students with better learning attitude reviewed more and spend more
time on peers’ reflections and had better quality in content of reflection. Therefore, teacher could facilitate students’
reflection performance by motivating learners’ learning attitude.
The better the content of reflection was, the better the project and attitude were. Since learners had no
experience in writing about reflection, it was necessary to enhance learners’ writing ability for reflection. Although
hints, outline and guidance were provided for students to write reflections, some parts of students’ reflections still
need to be improved. In order to help learners to grasp reflection skills, instructor must firstly let learners understand
the purpose and features of reflection so that procedures and foundations for learners to reflect could be constructed
(Rama & Battistoni, 2001), and then guide and assist learners to reflect with concise reflection items, so that learners’
progress of reflection could be going smoothly. It was found from students’ learning portfolio that some students’
reflection lacked depth, so guidance and supports from instructors and peers were needed. With supports of the
Internet and technology, a means for assisting learners to write reflections was recommended.
In connection with writing reflections, given that the web-based portfolio assessment system did not provide a
time recording function for tracking time that learners spending on writing reflections. If the system provides the
function, then time spending on writing reflections can be one of the independent variables and its relationship with
learning performance will be able to be examined. Furthermore, the outcome of the web-based portfolio assessment
should be observed in a long run, so the duration of the course should be extended and the sample size should be
larger in order to collect more reflections and learning performance.
Avrramidou, L., and Zembal-Saul, C. (2002). Exploring the influence of web-based portfolio development on
learning to teach elementary science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Barrett, H, & Garrett, N. (2009). Online personal learning environments: Structuring electronic portfolios for lifelong
and life wide learning. On the Horizon, 17(2) 2009, 142-152.
Barrett, H. (2010). Balancing the two faces of ePortfolios. Educação, Formação & Tecnologias, 3(1), 6‐14.
Blatt, B., Plack, M., Maring, J., Mintz, M., & Slmmens, S. (2007). Acting on reflection: The effect of reflection on
students’ clinical performance on a standardized patient examination. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22,
Campbell, L., Campbell, B., and Dickinson, D. (2002). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences (2nd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Chang, L. L. (2000). What portfolio is worthy? A discussion on basic element of independent learning portfolios.
PingTung Eudcation, 4, 5-12.
Chen, K. J., and Bai, M. H.(1998). Unknown word detection for Chinese by a corpus-based learning method.
Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 3(1), 27-44.
Cheng, Y. W. (2002). The design and application of web-based reflective portfolio. Unpublished master’s thesis.
National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chirema, K. (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.
Coombe, C., & Barlow, L. (2004). The reflective portfolio: Two case studies from the United Arab Emirates. Forum
Online, 42(1). Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol42/no1/p18.htm.
Costa, A. L., and Kallick, B. (2000). Assessing and reporting on habits of mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Costello, J. (2002). Evaluation of an electronic portfolio template system. Unpublished master thesis. Montreal,
Canada: The Concordia University.
Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students' knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International
Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819-837.
Eppink, J. A. (2002). The effect of web-based portfolio assessment strategies on the attitudes and self-perceived
growth in music learning of non-music elementary general classroom educators in a basics of music course.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Muncie, IN: Ball State University.
Falls, J. A. (2001). Using a reflective process to implement electronic portfolios. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Blacksburg, VA: The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Galvez-Martin, M. E., and Bowman, C. (1998). Reflection and the preservice teacher. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Dallas, Texas.
Gama, C. (2004). Metacognition in interactive learning environments: The reflection assistant model. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, 3220, 668-677.
Gibson, H. et al. (2001). Enhancing the science literacy of preservice teachers through the use of reflective journals.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis,
Grant, A., Vermunt, J., Kinnersley, P., & Houston, H. (2007). Exploring students’ perceptions on the use of
significant event analysis, as part assessment process in general practice, learning how to use reflection in
learning. BMC Medical Education, 7(1), 5.
Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica (2007). Chinese Word Segmentation System. Retrieved July 10,
2007 from the World Wide Web: http://ckipsvr.iis.sinica.edu.tw/.
Irby, B. J., and Brown, G. (1999). A gendered dichotomy in written reflections in professional development portfolios.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Kuo, Y. C. (2007). Structured web-based portfolio assessment system. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taipei
University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lee, Y. W. (2002). Paulo Freire's dialogical pedagogy and its transformation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Taipei
Municipal University of Education, Taipei , Taiwan.
Lii C. R. (2002). A study of senior high school students'' reflective thinking on their conceptual change of gas
property. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Lin, H. C. (2004). A study on the features of reflective thinking in third graders’ science journals. Unpublished
master’s thesis. National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan.
Lopez-Fernandez, O., & Rodriguez-Illera, J. (2009). Investigating university students’ adaptation to a digital learner
course portfolio. Computers & Education, 52, 608–616.
Masui, C., & De Corte, E. (2005). Learning to reflect and to attribute constructively as basic components of
self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 351-372.
Milman, N. B. (1999). Web-based electronic teaching portfolios for preservice teachers. In J. D. Price, J. Willis, D. A.
Willis, M. Jost, & S. Boget-Mehall (Eds.), Proceedings 10th International Conference of the Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education 1999 (pp.1174-1179). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education.
Morgan, B. M. (1999). Portfolios in a preservice teacher field-based program: Evaluation of a rubric for performance
assessment. Education, 119(3), 416-426.
Morris, J., and Buckland, H. (2000). Electronic portfolios for learning and assessment. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, California.
Murphy, J. I. (2004). Using focused reflection and articulation to promote clinical reasoning: An evidence-Based
Teaching Strategy. Nursing Education Perspectives, 25(5), 226-231.
Paris, S. G., and Ayres, L. R. (1994). Becoming reflective student and teachers. Washington, DC: American
Rama, D. V., and Battistoni, R. (2001). Structuring the reflection process. Service learning Website. Retrieved
September 9, 2007, from http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/structuring/decisions.html.
Reckase, M. D. (2002). Portfolio research. Paper presented at the Workshop on Portfolio Assessment, December
16~18, Taipei, Taiwan.
Rees, C., Shepherd, M., & Chamberlain, S. (2005) The utility of reflective portfolios as a method of assessing first
medical students’ personal and professional development. Reflective Practice, 6(1), 3-14.
Saito, H., & Miwa, K. (2007). Construction of a learning environment supporting learners’ reflection: A case of
information seeing on the Web. Computer & Education, 49(2), 214-229.
Santos, M. G. (1997). Portfolio assessment and the role of learner reflection. English Teaching Forum online, 35(2),
10. Retrieved October 9, 2004, from http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol35/no2/p10.htm.
Scott, G. P., & Linda, R. A. (1994). Becoming reflective students and teachers with portfolios and Authentic
Assessment. American Psychological Association.
Tomkinson, B. (2002). A reflective approach to teaching and learning. Teaching and Learning Support Centre.
Retrieved October 25, 2004, from http://ctls.concordia.ca/pdf/resources/reflective.approach.to.teaching.pdf.
Tsai, Y. F. (2004). An Introduction of the Chinese Word Segmentation and Syntactic Tagging System. Retrieved July
10, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://dlm.ntu.edu.tw/dlm/93NDAP/professional/pro-930906-7/8B.pdf.
Tubaishat, A., Lansari, A., & Al-Rawi, A. (2009). E-portfolio assessment system for an outcome-based information
technology curriculum. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 8, 1-15.
Wang, S. (2009). E-Portfolios for integrated reflection. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6,
Whitfield, A. (2000). Student teacher self-assessment: A proposed method of professional development. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. New Orleans, LA: University of New Orleans.
Wickstrom, C. D. (1998). Student-teacher discourse in a college reading course using the portfolio process: The
reflective portfolio conference - a conversation about learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, California.
Wood, P. K., King, P., Kitchener, K. S., and Lynch , C. (1994). Technical manual to accompany the reflective
thinking appraisal: RTA Technical manual (1). In K. S. Kitchener (1994), Assessing Reflective Thinking within
Curricular Contexts (pp.51-82). Washington, DC: Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.
Wood, P. K. (2000). Summary of Reflective Judgment Levels. Retrieved October 9, 2004, from
Wu, M. F. (2008). Construction of the rubrics, reliability and validity of web-based portfolio assessment.
Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yancey, K. B. (2001). Digitized student portfolio. In B. L. Cambridge, S. Kahn, D. P. Tompkins, and K. B. Yancey
(Eds.). Electronic Portfolios - Emerging Practice in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning (pp.15-30),
Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education Press.
Younes, M. (2004). Web-based student portfolio system at AAWC. Paper presented at the 2004 HCT Annual
Conference Workshops, Arabian, Dubai.
Zembal-Saul, C. (2001). Web-based portfolios in a professional development school context. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.