Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Assessing Writing

The three-fold benefit of reflective writing:

Improving program assessment, student
learning, and faculty professional development
Elizabeth G. Allan ∗, Dana Lynn Driscoll
Oakland University, Department of Writing & Rhetoric, 378 O’Dowd Hall, Rochester, MI 48309, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article presents a model of reflective writing used to assess
Received 5 April 2013 a U.S. general education first-year writing course. We argue that
Received in revised form 21 February 2014 integrating reflection into existing assignments has three poten-
Accepted 1 March 2014
tial benefits: enhancing assessment of learning outcomes, fostering
Available online 19 March 2014
student learning, and engaging faculty in professional develop-
ment. We describe how our research-based assessment process
Keywords:
and findings yielded insights into students’ writing processes, pro-
Writing assessment
moted metacognition and transfer of learning, and revealed a
Reflective writing
Student learning variety of professional development needs. We conclude with a
First-year composition description of our three-fold model of reflection and suggest how
Faculty professional development others can adapt our approach.
Outcomes assessment © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

When students reflect upon their learning, they engage in a potentially transformative act of
responding to, connecting with, and analyzing an experience, event, process, or product. Reflection
is one way to bridge the divide between thought and action—an opportunity for students to describe
their internal processes, evaluate their challenges, and recognize their triumphs in ways that would
otherwise remain unarticulated. Dewey (1910) argued that reflective thinking can lead to power-
ful educational transformations. Building on Dewey’s work, Schön (1987, 1995) demonstrated the

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 248 370 2750; fax: +1 248 370 2748.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.G. Allan), [email protected] (D.L. Driscoll).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.001
1075-2935/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
38 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55

importance of reflective practices for engaged learning in a variety of contexts. Schön (1987) identi-
fied “reflection-in-action” as a form of critical thinking: “rethinking” past knowledge or actions and
“further thinking that affects what we do” in the immediate task and in similar situations (p. 29).
A primary purpose of education is for students to adapt knowledge from their immediate learning
context to personal, professional, educational and civic contexts (Perkins, Tishman, Ritchart, Donis, &
Andrade, 2000; Russell & Yañez, 2003). We see reflection as a key component in that process. Because
the first-year writing (FYW) and general education (GE) curricula in U.S. higher education emphasize
building bridges,1 reflection has tremendous potential for courses throughout the university.
At Oakland University, what started with using reflection as a tool for mandated GE assessment of
our required FYW course has led us to develop a model of reflection as a unified approach for improving
student learning across the curriculum. Analyzing our experiences spanning three academic years, we
argue that reflection yields a three-fold benefit relevant to assessing writing across curricula: (1) to
enhance assessment, (2) to promote student learning, and (3) to improve teaching.
In the sections that follow, we first explain how our model of reflection is situated in the scholar-
ship of teaching and learning in writing studies and higher education. After describing our research
context and direct assessment methods, we show how reflection became a key part of our research-
based writing assessment process and explain our method of triangulating assessment findings for
students’ research papers, students’ reflective essays, and instructors’ course materials. Drawing on
our assessment results, we present the case for using reflection to facilitate student learning. Issues
raised by our assessment results led us to conduct a more refined analysis of a subset of our reflective
writing data to address specific questions about our students’ perceptions of learning. Our findings
demonstrate how reflective writing can encourage students to view learning as a process, develop
students’ metacognitive awareness, and promote transfer of learning beyond FYW courses. We then
discuss how integrating reflection into our assessment process revealed the need for more faculty pro-
fessional development to address faculty resistance and to develop effective strategies for teaching
reflection.
Synthesizing suggestions from previous literature with our own experiences, we conclude by artic-
ulating a model of reflection in higher education where reflection sits in the center of a variety
of productive activities. We see these activities surrounding reflection as a way to “close the loop”
(Condon, 2009, p. 149) and bring assessment findings back into the classroom. While our research-
based assessment project is situated in the context of a writing course in U.S. higher education, it
has broader implications for teaching and learning scholarship across national, institutional, and dis-
ciplinary contexts because it offers both a specific pedagogical tool and a model for research-based
assessment of student learning through reflective writing.

2. Reflection in the scholarship of teaching and learning

2.1. Definitions and features of reflection

Denton (2011) demonstrated that while that there is no single definition for “reflection” across
higher education, characteristic factors repeat throughout the literature: evaluation over time, thor-
ough exploration of ideas, depth of analysis, metacognitive awareness, and connection of reflection to
specific practices (pp. 841–842). In this section, we summarize the disparate literature on reflection
and define the features of reflection that most influenced our construct of reflection for this project:
understanding writing and learning processes, fostering metacognition, and encouraging transfer of
learning.
Schön (1995) defined “reflective transfer” as situated inquiry that generates working models, which
require “modification and testing in ‘the next situation”’ (p. 97). Drawing on Schön’s work, Yancey

1
Russell and Yañez (2003) described U.S. GE courses as “similar to the ‘modular courses”’ used in the U.K. (p. 362, note 1).
Readers of this journal may also be familiar with the goals of U.S. GE curricula through Morozov’s (2011) study of writing-
intensive courses.
 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55 39

(1998), described “reflective transfer” as an iterative practice that requires description, evaluation,
and adaptation of processes. In the context of reflective writing, she argued:

Reflective transfer has a specific application: to help us understand the processes by which
students learn, the assignments that motivate and structure such learning, the responses that
invite insight, [and] the tasks that invite the inside as well as the outside to come together. (pp.
126–127)

More recent research suggests that reflection can be used to better understand and assess writing
development beyond student texts, including individual students’ theories of writing and learning,
metacognition processes, and understandings of transfer of learning (Slomp, 2012; Sommers, 2011).
At its basic level, reflection allows students to move beyond a product-centered approach and focus on
the learning process. Yancey (1998) demonstrated that reflecting upon the writing process encourages
students to describe and assess their own textual productions and to consider how various audiences
may interact with their work (p. 32). Because Yancey’s approach to reflection works particularly well
for both student learning and writing assessment, we drew upon her work to design our reflective
assignment and assessment rubric.
Another feature of reflection is that it fosters metacognitive awareness when students are asked to
reflect on their learning/thinking processes, to monitor their learning, and to adapt their knowledge
(Grossman, 2009; Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Researchers have identified metacognition as critical to
student learning success, including the development of expertise and the ability to adapt knowledge
to new situations (National Research Council, 1999). Yancey (1998) demonstrated that reflection pro-
vides at least three things to learners (all of which fall under the mantle of metacognition, although
she does not use that term): an understanding of learning goals, an awareness of strategies to reach
said goals, and a way of figuring out if a learner has met those goals (p. 6). Metacognition is a type of
self-assessment or self-awareness; as such, it can be used for ongoing formative assessment of student
progress toward specific goals and for understanding behaviors or projects accordingly (Andrade &
Valtcheva, 2009). Denton (2011) suggested that all reflection is, on some level, metacognitive. Since
one of our programmatic goals is for students to engage in metacognition, our assessment process
included students’ reflective self-evaluations.
A final feature of reflection is that it reveals students’ beliefs about the transfer of learning, or the
ability to adapt knowledge from their immediate learning context to a wide variety of new contexts
(Perkins et al., 2000). Reflection can encourage transfer of learning by inviting students to build spe-
cific connections to prior, current, and future contexts (Beaufort, 2007; Taczak, 2011; Wardle, 2007).
Transfer of learning also includes the ability to activate, adapt, and apply prior knowledge to the
current learning situation (Reiff & Bawarshi, 2011; Robertson, Taczak & Yancey, 2012) and the will-
ingness to build bridges between current and future learning (Driscoll, 2011; Haskell, 2000; Salomon &
Perkins, 1989; Sommers, 2011). Perkins and Salomon (2012) suggested that transfer functions through
a detect-elect-connect model: Students have to develop meta-awareness about where prior knowledge
may apply, elect to pursue connection, and finally, connect and adapt that knowledge to a new cir-
cumstance. To understand this meta-awareness, we examined evidence of students’ “transfer-focused
thinking” (Elon Statement on Writing Transfer, 2013, p. 4) in their reflective essays.
To summarize this literature, then, we see reflection as a powerful process that allows students to
review and evaluate their writing and research processes, demonstrate their metacognitive awareness,
and build connections to prior, current, and future learning contexts.

2.2. Reflection in higher education

In the literature that informed our assessment practices, portfolio-based reflection is often dis-
cussed as an aid to GE assessment. Assessment of e-portfolios typically includes a reflective writing
component (Desmet, Miller, Griffin, Balthazor, & Cummings, 2008; Rickards et al., 2008). Reynolds and
Rice (2006) developed a practical guide to using portfolios to assess learning in a variety of courses.
Other work, especially in writing assessment, has examined the role of reflective writing (Yancey,
1999) and reflection in faculty development (Willard-Traub, 2008).
40 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55

Because we were not able to find articulations of reflection in the literature that specifically
suggested a multi-step approach to improving curricula, and because of the specific needs of our
institutional context (described in Section 3), we present our program’s assessment process as a case
study of how reflective writing can be used. The specific conditions that made assessing our writing
course challenging also provided an opportunity to design an assessment, teaching, and professional
development method that could be adapted for a variety of different programs in other institutional
contexts. The model that we offer has relevance for those interested in writing assessment, in Writing
Across the Curriculum or Writing in the Disciplines (WAC/WID) programs that incorporate writing-
to-learn pedagogy, in FYW programs that have other institution-specific curricular structures, and in
discipline-specific programs. The value of reflection lies beyond any one domain; rather, we demon-
strate a three-fold benefit for using reflection across institutional contexts to understand student
learning, assess learning, and engage faculty in professional development.

3. Research context, materials, and methods

3.1. Research context

Oakland University is classified by the Carnegie Foundation as a doctoral/research institution,

accredited by the North Central Association. Originally founded as an honors college affiliated with
Michigan State University, it has maintained a strong commitment to undergraduate education. Oak-
land University serves more than 16,000 undergraduate students in the Detroit, MI area, as well as
over 3,500 graduate students. Because of its academic reputation and its relatively low tuition as a
state-funded institution, Oakland draws students from both affluent and economically disadvantaged
communities. Most students commute and hold jobs while attending college full-time. The undergrad-
uate student population is primarily White, yet there is a high level of cultural diversity since many
students’ families immigrated to this area from Eastern Europe and the Middle East a generation or
two ago. The average ACT score for first-year students is 22.5.2
Our required FYW course, WRT 160 Composition II, is also the required writing knowledge founda-
tions course of Oakland University’s GE program. Students with an ACT score of 28 or higher (or a score
of 3 or 4 on the Advanced Placement English Language and Composition exam) place directly into this
course.3 Students who do not meet these placement criteria must first take WRT 150 Composition
I (ACT 16–27) or WRT 102 Basic Writing (ACT below 16). Composition II is a prerequisite for many
of the upper-level courses in Oakland’s GE curriculum, including writing-intensive courses in every
undergraduate degree program. Most undergraduate students complete Composition II in their first
or second semester.
As co-chairs of the Writing and Rhetoric (WRT) department’s assessment committee at Oakland,
we were responsible for planning and implementing ongoing assessment of the writing knowledge
foundations course. We faced a number of challenges because our Composition II course is not struc-
tured around a common textbook or a set of standardized assignments. Instead, WRT faculty members
are encouraged to design their own assignments to support the General Education Student Learning
Outcomes (see below), following best practices for writing pedagogy. Composition II is taught by both
full-time and contingent faculty in the WRT department. Of the 44 contingent faculty who teach the
majority of Composition II sections, 7 have master’s degrees in the teaching of writing, 5 have PhDs
in composition and rhetoric, and others hold advanced degrees in related fields, such as literature,
education, and communication. The diversity of our instructors’ approaches posed a problem for the
WRT assessment committee: No single assignment existed to facilitate a program-wide assessment.

2
The ACT is a standardized test used in the U.S. to determine a student’s readiness for college-level academic work
(http://www.act.org/products/k-12-act-test/).
3
High school students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses may take a nationally standardized
test to be exempted from introductory college-level courses and/or qualify for higher education credits
(http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/Controller.jpf). At Oakland University, students who achieve the highest score of
5 are exempted from WRT 160.
 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55 41

Reflective writing emerged as a pivotal element linking GE assessment, student learning, and faculty
professional development during our three-year assessment project.

3.2. Research methods and materials

In The Writing Program Administrator as Researcher, Weiser and Rose (1999) established that WPA
research, often rooted in program-based assessment, does not differ in methods or approaches from
other kinds of research in the field (pp. vii–ix). Accordingly, we conducted our assessment on two
levels using methodologies appropriate for the purpose of improving our own program and for the
purpose of better understanding student learning using broader constructs from the field. We obtained
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to use our de-identified assessment materials as data for
research purposes.
We selected the research paper as our direct measure of student learning based on the catalog
description of the course:

WRT 160 emphasizes the process of writing in increasingly complex rhetorical situations with
focus on developing analytic thinking and problem-solving strategies in writing. Students learn
methods of academic research including evaluation and documentation of sources and are
expected to create at least one research paper.

While we anticipated that every student enrolled in Composition II would be engaged in research-
based writing, our pilot assessment of individual instructors’ syllabi had alerted us to the fact that
specific requirements for the research assignment varied widely.
We developed a sampling method to assess writing from one randomly selected student in each
of the 128 sections of Composition II taught in the 2010–2011 academic year.4 To develop our assess-
ment tools, we first needed to operationalize Oakland University’s General Education Student Learning
Outcomes for the course:
The writing knowledge foundation area prepares students to demonstrate:

• knowledge of the elements, writing processes and organizing strategies for creating analytical and
expository prose
• effective rhetorical strategies appropriate to the topic, audience, context and purpose

The course’s emphasis on developing rhetorical awareness complicated our assessment design. We
collected assignment instructions and syllabi in addition to student writing to determine instructor-
specific rhetorical situations (non-expert vs. expert audiences or persuasive vs. informative purposes,
for example). This supplemental material allowed our raters to assess each student’s level of rhetorical
effectiveness more accurately, using performative assessment rubrics that we developed and tested
in the pilot study.5
Instructors’ course materials (n = 58) and student research papers (n = 109), as well as student reflec-
tive essays (n = 104) discussed in Section 4, were assessed over 2.5 days by an ad hoc WRT committee of
three full-time faculty and four contingent faculty, all of whom teach the course regularly. The faculty
raters participated in norming sessions where they independently evaluated sample anchor papers
and helped us to refine the rubrics by adding or clarifying qualitative distinctions (see Appendices
A and B). In the next section, we discuss our reasons for adding reflective writing to the assessment
process, our reflection assessment rubric, and our extended analysis of a subset of reflective essays.

4
Our sampling method was developed in consultation with Oakland University’s Office of Institutional Research and Assess-
ment. All 22 instructors teaching WRT 160 in the fall submitted materials. In the second semester, 39 of the 42 instructors
teaching WRT 160 submitted materials. Materials from 1 instructor’s sections were not readable, and 5 students did not submit
the required reflective essay, leaving us with 109 papers and 104 reflections.
5
See Faigley, Cherry, Jolliffe, and Skinner (1985) for a detailed discussion of how to develop performative assessment rubrics
that describe levels of proficiency for specific writing tasks. We have included our rubric for rating the students’ research papers
in Appendix B.
42 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55

4. Reflection and research-based assessment methods

4.1. Integrating reflection into the assessment process

There was a crucial component of the required General Education Student Learning Outcomes
that our direct assessment of the students’ research papers could not measure, even when taking the
parameters of each instructor’s unique assignment into account: the students’ knowledge of writing
processes. Therefore, the WRT assessment committee created a common reflective writing assignment.
Similar to the “behind the paper” memo developed by Sommers (1988), our reflection prompt included
specific questions about the writing and research processes, as well as questions that address other
departmental goals for the course (see Appendix A). As Yancey (1998) argued, process descriptions
“provide a record of what happened” and make students’ knowledge visible to themselves and to
others (pp. 26–27). We based our reflective writing assignment on the principles of reflection-in-action
(Schön, 1987) and reflective transfer (Schön, 1995; Yancey, 1998) and the social constructivist theory
that “prompts for self-assessment work toward building a habit of formative evaluation” (Hilgers
et al., 2000, p. 14). While the reflection prompt emphasized our process-based approach to writing for
assessment purposes, it was also designed to introduce our faculty and students to reflective writing
as a key component in the learning process.
To give readers a sense of our overall process for integrating reflection into our assessment, Fig. 1
presents a graphical representation of our timeline and the major components of this process.
Each instructor was asked to include our reflection assignment as part of the coursework in conjunc-
tion with his or her existing research paper assignment. During our annual professional development
seminar at the end of the 2009–2010 academic year, we introduced the concept of including reflec-
tion as part of the program assessment process, and we distributed resources and models for teaching
reflection, such as Reynolds and Rice’s (2006) Portfolio Teaching. We explained the common reflective
assignment at a faculty professional development workshop at the beginning of each semester that
assessment data was being collected (AY 2010–2011). Many of our faculty had never assigned reflec-
tions with their assignments; therefore, we provided ongoing support for faculty who had questions
about teaching reflection.

4.2. The reflective writing assessment rubric and additional coding

Reflections gave us a window into the writing, research, and learning processes from the students’
perspective. Raters read the reflective essays for evidence of the students’ engagement with specific
process-based activities related to writing and research, and for self-evaluative statements about their
strengths and weaknesses as writers and about the quality of their learning through the research paper
assignment. In each subcategory of the assessment rubric (see Appendix A), a score of 1 indicated that
there was no evidence of that characteristic present in a student’s discussion of his or her experiences.
A score of 2–5 on the performative assessment scale (with 2 being poor and 5 being exceptional)
indicated the level of detail and depth of insight demonstrated by the student for each subcategory.
Two writing process subcategories were scored only as present/absent in the student’s reflection:
faculty interactions/conferences (Yes = 25.5%) and writing center visits (Yes = 11%). Each reflection
also received a holistic score for overall quality. We designed the performative assessment rubric to
assess students’ engagement with a number of good writing behaviors—help-seeking, pre-writing,
peer review, critical evaluation of sources—and their perceptions of how those behaviors relate to
writing outcomes.
After our initial assessment of students’ reflective essays (n = 104) was completed, we realized
that our original rubric could not provide enough detailed information about some aspects of student
learning that had surprised us (see Section 5). As writing studies scholars whose research interests
lie in the scholarship of teaching and learning, we expanded our initial assessment to investigate
students’ descriptions of their learning. We systematically coded a subset of student reflections (n = 20).
First, we compiled a list of “weak” and “strong” reflections (those with a rating of 1 and 5 in the
two “learning” categories from our original rubric) and randomly selected five from each category.
Drawing upon the features of reflections we described in Section 2.1, we focused our analysis of
 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55
Fig. 1. Timeline for integrating reflection in WRT 160 at Oakland University.

43
44 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55

student learning in three areas: writing/research processes, metacognitive awareness, and transfer
of learning-focused thinking. We developed and refined coding categories in the following areas: (1)
understanding writing process, (2) understanding research processes, (3) transfer of learning, and
(4) lack of transfer or negative transfer (see Appendix C). Although the sample size of this extended
analysis was much smaller than the original research-based assessment, focusing on the strongest and
weakest reflections gave us greater insight into students’ positive and negative learning experiences.

4.3. Benefits of reflection for research-based assessment

Our approach to GE assessment is grounded in the discipline-specific research methods practiced in

writing studies (see Adler-Kassner & O’Neil, 2010). Including the reflective assignment in our assess-
ment research protocol gave us an additional sample of the students’ writing that not only helped
us to contextualize the research papers but also enacted our discipline’s best practices for writing
assessment as articulated in the position statements of the National Council of Teachers of English
and the Council of Writing Program Administrators (NCTE-WPA, 2008) and the Conference on College
Composition and Communication (CCCC Committee on Assessment, 2009).
Assessing the relatively short reflective essay (600–800 words) combined with a research paper
from each student in our sample added depth to our assessment process without overwhelming our
raters with a complex array of student texts in multiple genres. For institutional contexts where
portfolios are not an established pedagogical practice or where limited resources preclude reading an
extended set of texts for each student in the assessment sample, the addition of a short reflective essay
tied to the direct measure of student learning proved to be an efficient and highly beneficial assessment
method. We initially recognized reflection as a way to understand not just students’ products, but the
processes that guide those productions. Comparing a draft to a revised version of a student essay, for
example, can tell us what the student changed—and how, to a certain extent—but it cannot tell us
why. In contrast, reflection allowed us to learn about the relationship between students’ beliefs and
their behaviors and to understand students’ responses to our curriculum that would otherwise remain
hidden.

5. Reflection and student learning

5.1. Students’ perceptions about writing and research processes

Because we subdivided the writing process category in the performative rubric used to assess
the reflective essays (n = 104), we were able to differentiate between the inherently social activities
emphasized in best-practice writing pedagogy (such as conferences and peer reviews) and the tra-
ditional five-step writing process familiar to most students (prewriting, drafting, revising, editing,
publishing). Table 1 shows the mean scores for the students’ reflective essays. Since this rubric will
also be used to assess advanced students’ writing during subsequent program assessment, mean scores
in the 3 range are not unexpected for novice student writers.
The mean scores for the four writing process subcategories evaluated on the 5-point scale (prewrit-
ing, revision, editing/proofreading, peer review) ranged from the lowest (peer review: 1.93) to one
of the highest (prewriting: 3.01). Although students perceived that they had learned about writing
through the course, two of the best-practices activities that we consider fundamental to our approach
to writing at Oakland—peer review and revision—were not discussed as often or in as much detail
in the students’ reflective essays. Self-evaluation of learning about writing was rated highest at 3.17,
while revision was rated at only 2.7. Similarly, mean scores in the research process subcategories
(locating peer reviewed sources, selecting and evaluating sources, integrating sources in APA format)
ranged from one of the highest (selecting and evaluating sources: 3.1) to one of the lowest (integrating
sources using APA format: 2.01). These conflicting results within a single process category added a
layer of complexity to our assessment that would not have been visible without the data from students’
reflections.
 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55 45

Table 1
Mean scores on reflection assignment performance rubric.

Reflection rubric category Mean score (5-point scale)

1. Writing process
a. Prewriting 3.01
b. Revision 2.70
c. Editing and proofreading 2.22
d. Peer review (in class or online) 1.93

2. Research process
a. Locating peer-reviewed sources 2.78
b. Selecting and evaluating sources 3.10
c. Integrating sources in APA format 2.01

3. Self-evaluation
a. Strengths of writer 2.98
b. Weaknesses of writer 2.95
c. Quality of learning
(i) Learning about writing and rhetoric 3.17
(ii) Learning about research paper topic 2.85

4. Overall quality of reflection 3.19

5.2. Describing and evaluating processes

When we coded the subset of weak and strong student reflections, we found that nearly all students
were quite articulate in describing and evaluating their research and writing processes. In our coding,
we split up a description of process (what a student did) from the evaluation of the process (why a
student did it) and found that all students in our sample (100%, n = 20) both described and evaluated
their research process, while 95% (n = 18) both described and evaluated their writing process.
Students were able to identify places of difficulty and evaluate their success by discussing their
choices, strategies, or limitations. For example, one student not only recounts what happened during
her revision process but also evaluates her process as rushed and, therefore, not completely effective.
This excerpt comes at the end of a long paragraph describing her absences during peer review days
and her attempts to find others to give her feedback on her paper:

I waited a day so that I could just think and then changed the paper for the last time. Most of
the corrections were done in a few days and I wish that I would have been more prepared so
that it could have happened in a few weeks. This would have improved the paper greatly.

Since describing and evaluating a process is the most concrete part of a reflection, connected to actual
practice, it makes sense that students were most effective in this area. As we asked students to move
further away from the actual act of research and writing and into more abstract reflection, which is
critical for successful transfer of learning, their responses grew less clear and less detailed, as described
in Section 5.4.

5.3. Students perceptions of their learning

In our initial assessment of students’ self-evaluation of the quality of their learning as discussed in
their reflective essays (n = 104), we distinguished between learning about writing and rhetoric (mean
score 3.17) and learning about their research paper topic (mean score 2.85). Although we did not
directly ask students about applying prior knowledge or anticipating transferring to other contexts,
our goal of understanding students’ views of transfer of learning is implied in the prompt question
“What did you learn from this writing assignment?” For this baseline assessment, we were interested
in learning about how prepared students were to engage in unprompted transfer-focused behaviors
and thinking, before we implemented specific pedagogical interventions.
46 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55

5.4. Metacognition and self-assessment of learning

Metacognitive features seemed more challenging for the students to report than writing and
research processes. Our extended analysis of weak and strong reflections (n = 20) revealed that
students did not describe their overall learning using nearly as much detail as they did when
they discussed and evaluated their writing process. Students discussed learning information about
topics (50%, n = 10), research (65%, n = 13), and writing (50%, n = 10), with 15% of students (n = 3)
not describing their learning at all, despite being directly prompted to do so. Students were
more specific when they described what they learned about their topic, and they discussed
learning of research and writing skills in broader terms (which pointed to one area for addi-
tional faculty professional development in terms of teaching reflection, as discussed in Section
6).
One student, in describing what she learned, wrote of her topic, “I learned about the inac-
curate perception that many Americans have towards the homeless.” But when describing what
she learned about the research process, she wrote, “I learned what sources I have available to
me”—without specifying the nature of those sources or how she could access them. Another stu-
dent, who did not address his topic-related learning at all, described what he learned in very
unspecific terms: “From this writing assignment, I learned that the research process is very
long and consists of many things.” These vague responses suggest that we needed to spend
even more time teaching the value of focused, detailed reflection and metacognitive aware-
ness.

5.5. Evidence of transfer-focused thinking

As transfer of learning requires students to abstract beyond the immediate learning situation and
detect-elect-connect (Perkins & Salomon, 2012), we examined places where students indicated engag-
ing in such behaviors unprompted: adapting prior knowledge to their courses or research assignment
(20%, n = 10), connecting learning to other current contexts (10%, n = 5), connecting learning to future
contexts (45%, n = 9), and engaging in other positive behaviors that would facilitate transfer (30%,
n = 6). For example, one student provided a detailed description of successfully adapting a research
and source management strategy from middle school. She writes, “As the due date for the final paper
inched closer, I decided to try an approach I learned in middle school on how to write a fluent research
paper. This strategy came in handy when composing my literature review.” She goes on to describe
what she did in detail and to evaluate the success of that approach.

5.6. Evidence of negative transfer

Students also demonstrated evidence of self-reported negative transfer, including difficulty in over-
coming perceived differences between prior learning and current learning in the course (35%, n = 7),
applying strategies in inappropriate ways (10%, n = 2), and engaging in other behaviors that resisted
learning (10%, n = 2). For example, students reported struggling with learning new genre and format-
ting techniques (e.g., APA style) and saw those differences as detrimental to their success as writers.
One student wrote, “Since I have never used APA format in the past, it was extremely difficult for me
to adjust to the change.”
What these reflections taught us was that students were making some attempts at transfer-
focused thinking and metacognitive awareness, but the fact that less than half of the students,
overall, were engaging in transfer-focused thinking suggests that we need to encourage these
kinds of behaviors more overtly through scaffolded in-class activities and explicit reflective writing
prompts.

6. Reflection and faculty professional development

By including student reflections in addition to their completed research papers, we were able
to create a snapshot of student learning that helped us set the agenda for ongoing professional
 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55 47

development. Yancey and Huot (1997) assert, “WAC assessment is as much about faculty
development—about how faculty develop and monitor their teaching and about how their
understanding of learning changes—as it is about student development” (p. 11). This statement
is true not only of WAC assessment but of all forms of writing assessment. In fact, it is a principle of
reflective practice that applies to individual performance assessment, as well as to course or program
assessment, in any disciplinary context.
Simply assigning reflections to improve student learning is not sufficient, however. If reflection is
not specifically taught in the context of a course or an assignment, or if reflections are not treated as
artifacts for assessment in their own right, the resulting analysis will not be as effective as a springboard
for professional development. There are aspects of the learning process that cannot be answered
without the insight into students’ thinking that reflective writing makes possible.

6.1. Addressing faculty resistance to reflection assessment

By providing a short reflective essay assignment that would complement the writing that was
already happening in the course, we were able to balance our need for a common assessment mea-
sure across different sections of the course with our desire to respect our instructors’ academic
freedom. Faculty resistance to mandated assessment is a frequent topic of discussion in assessment
scholarship. Wang and Hurley (2012) found that “faculty autonomy” is a key factor in their “will-
ingness to engage in assessment” (p. 9). As Bresciani (2007) has noted, “Faculty may be hesitant
to engage in. . .course-embedded assessment, if they believe that poor results will be factored into
their teaching evaluations” (p. 12). When reflection is part of that assessment process, the stakes
are even higher for untenured faculty who may fear that students’ reflective writing could neg-
atively influence instructors’ performance reviews. Indeed, some assessment experts do advocate
using reflective writing assessment to identify individual faculty members who can act as mentors
to promote best practice pedagogy (Condon, 2009, p. 148). But if student reflections can be used
to identify exemplary instructors, then they might also be used against individual instructors. Even
though we discussed this issue openly in staff meetings throughout the assessment process, our
instructors were understandably nervous about the possibility of their randomly selected student
turning out to be the weakest or most resistant student in the class. This concern is one reason
that we followed a research-based protocol of de-identifying instructor and student materials and
of reporting aggregated results that would guide us in promoting best practices at the program
level.
A second area of faculty resistance specific to reflection involved skepticism about the qual-
ity of information that student reflection offers. Some faculty feared that students would use the
reflections as an excuse to complain; others worried that students would paint a falsely positive
picture of their level of engagement. Instructors familiar with large-scale, state-mandated portfolio
requirements in U.S. secondary education have good reason to be cautious about applying a stan-
dardized reflection system to their college classrooms. Scott (2005) found that the personas high
school students created in their reflections in order to meet the required rubric score contrasted
sharply with the students’ more candid responses to interviews and their observable behaviors dur-
ing class sessions. This phenomenon is not uncommon at the college level, either. Weiser (1997)
identified problematic characteristics of students’ reflective cover letters for writing portfolios,
including “the schmooze factor” (p. 300). Reynolds and Rice (2006) offered several ways to avoid
eliciting reflections that exhibit “schmooze”—the tendency for students to say what they think
their instructors want to hear and to make personal and emotional appeals for good grades (p.
61).
At Oakland University, some of our faculty initially reacted to the idea of assigning student
reflections by asserting that students do not take reflection seriously. At our annual professional
development seminar, one of the instructors (who later agreed to serve as a rater) stated that, in
her experience, reflections were a just a student’s way of “blowing sunshine up your ass.” To address
these concerns, we presented preliminary findings from our pilot study (conducted to develop the
assessment rubrics) and explained how the reflections would be used. We also provided resource
materials, including copies of Reynolds and Rice’s work, to all of our instructors. Our discussions of
48 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55

“judging degrees of schmooze” (Reynolds & Rice, 2006, p. 61) prepared our instructors to teach reflec-
tive writing in WRT 160. We are continuing to conduct workshops on teaching reflection as part of
our ongoing professional development agenda.

6.2. Teaching reflection

While reflection can be of substantial benefit to student learning, as the literature reveals and our
own experiences can substantiate, reflection can be challenging to teach effectively. Denton (2011)
argued that the term “reflection” is not a single construct but a series of related areas that include both
internal and external aspects. Internal to the student are qualities that may promote reflective thinking
upon past events/experiences, such as metacognitive awareness and willingness to spend time; exter-
nal to the student are aspects that influence the production of reflection, such as faculty’s pedagogical
techniques or reflective genres such as journaling and reflective essays (pp. 839–840). As Denton sug-
gested, we must be aware of the interplay between internal and external aspects. Reflective writing is
too often treated as a transparent and universal skill commensurate with such loosely-defined terms
as effective communication or writing competency. Callahan (2000) demonstrated that both instructors’
and students’ learning style preferences can create unconscious biases and resistance, which compli-
cates our ability to interpret students’ reflective writing. Seeing reflections as an easy-to-master skill
is problematic because, as we know from the transfer of learning and metacognition literature, ele-
ments that reflection promotes are hardly transparent to students or faculty (Callahan, 2000; Haskell,
2000; National Research Council, 1999). If we want reflection to have meaningful benefits, it must be
modeled and taught (Callahan, 2000; Grossman, 2009). In our assessment process, we found that a
reflective prompt could not simply be handed to the students. For quality student work, instructors
had to teach students how to reflect through modeling, class discussions/activities, and formative
feedback.
One of the key areas to teaching good reflections is writing clear reflective prompts. Instructors
must determine the goal(s) for reflection and the kind of reflection in which they want students to
engage. A good prompt will encourage certain kinds of response. Beaufort (2007) argued that reflection
alone is not enough to facilitate quality learning. Reflection prompts that negotiated between being
too general and too specific created the best responses.
Additionally, our instructors reported much more success with reflection when reflection
“counted.” Making reflection count certainly includes giving students points for reflection as part of
their grade, but we also encourage talking to students about why reflection is factored into the course
grade and what benefits it has for them as learners. Students need to see reflection as something
beyond an empty exercise of “blowing sunshine.”

6.3. Reflection-driven professional development at Oakland University

Andrade (2007) argued that a workshop approach to professional development yielded unantici-
pated benefits because it engaged the faculty in discussions of departmental goals and expectations.
Rather than simply reporting FYW portfolio assessment results at a meeting, Andrade asked instructors
to work collaboratively to reenact the assessment scoring process using a particularly weak stu-
dent essay (p. 202). The resulting discussion of the assessment rubric functioned as a retroactive,
department-wide norming process. While Andrade’s approach exemplifies closing the loop by tying
assessment results directly to specific efforts to improve teaching and learning, from our perspective
there was a missed opportunity: Because the student’s reflective cover letter was not considered in
their analysis of teaching and learning practices, the instructors in Andrade’s study were unable to tap
the potential of reflective writing as a source of data.
In contrast, at Oakland University, including three sets of data in our assessment
analysis—instructors’ course materials, students’ research papers, and students’ reflections—allowed
us to triangulate multiple sources of data to identify trends that would not have been apparent with
any single dataset. Based on our assessment results, the FYW director, associate director, and members
of the WRT assessment committee identified issues that we could address with specific recommenda-
tions and changes to our faculty handbook, such as clarifying our departmental policies about requiring
 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55 49

revision and scheduling individual conferences. We then prioritized the student learning outcomes
that needed more sustained intervention and designed a series of faculty-led workshops to address
those concerns collaboratively with our FYW instructors.
Each professional development workshop began with a very brief presentation that focused on one
important finding from our assessment data to frame the discussion and related activities. For example,
we found that the lowest scores on students’ research papers were in the four subcategories related
to purpose and audience—a disturbing finding for a course and program that emphasizes rhetorical
awareness. Our assessment of the instructors’ course materials, however, showed that only 26% (n = 15)
of research paper assignment instructions clearly included information about the intended audi-
ence(s). These findings determined the focus of one of our professional development meetings—best
practices in assignment design—with opportunities for faculty to share classroom-tested materials
and strategies.
While we hasten to add that the rhetorical concept of audience may have been addressed in dis-
cussions or related activities that occurred in the classroom and were not directly assessed, the lack of
explicit written instructions about the nature of the audience and the expected rhetorical strategies
affected student performance on the specific task (the research paper) and metacognition in student
learning (the self-evaluative reflection). As Condon (2009) argued, reflective writing “can provide data
that engages assessment with instruction” (p. 149). In our experience at Oakland, including faculty
in a collaborative effort to assess learning outcomes as a research-based activity and to respond to
key findings as a professional learning community has strengthened our departmental culture, as we
model the same “reflective learning habit” (Reynolds & Rice, 2006, p. 30) that we cultivate in our
students.

6.4. Next steps

Through our work with reflection, we recognized the need to promote the teaching of reflection
and the importance of reflective learning throughout our curriculum. Encouraging students to build
connections and engage in metacognitive thinking required reflection in ways that moved beyond a
description and evaluation of what students accomplished in an assignment. Since completing our
initial assessment, we have taken additional steps to integrate and emphasize reflection throughout
our program. This work has included ongoing professional development activities surrounding reflec-
tion, such as workshops on metacognition and teaching reflection for our faculty. Our FYW director
revised the faculty handbook to include information on reflection, transfer, and metacognition; and
developed a supplemental text for our FYW courses that includes student contributions with models
of successful reflections. Finally, we piloted a new, heavily reflective approach to teaching FYW, which
highlights activities to activate prior knowledge by asking students to talk about their prior knowledge
of various written genres, to reflect upon previous writing experiences, and to transfer their learning
to other contexts.

7. Conclusion: a model of reflection at the center of learning, assessment, and professional

development

When reflection is included as part of the repertoire of teaching and learning practices, it has the
potential to be a central component of variety of GE and disciplinary programs. The seemingly simple
act of reflection can become a transformative, powerful practice that produces at least three benefits:
reinforcing and extending student learning, improving assessment to better understand our programs,
and facilitating faculty engagement in professional development.
While reflection has had substantial attention in higher education, the discussion and implemen-
tation of reflection seems to take place in insolated, sometimes contradictory ways. Numerous fields
not directly connected to writing or general education employ reflective practice: teacher education
(Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Tillman, 2003), film studies (Blasco, 2011), nursing (Craft, 2005), medicine
(Bonovitz, 2010), biology (Balgopal & Montplaisir, 2011). Several scholars have addressed the peda-
gogy of reflection for higher education in broad terms, although differing views exist on what it is,
how to teach it, and in what contexts it can best be used, as described in Section 2 (Denton, 2011;
50 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55

Fig. 2. Model of reflection in higher education.

Galea, 2012; Grossman, 2009). To address these issues, in this final section, we present a model of how
reflective writing might be used within the context of higher education.
Fig. 2 is a visual representation of the three-fold benefit of reflection.
We place reflection at the center of multiple activities of critical importance to educational progress.
Our model shows the connections between these types of activities, all of which contribute to stu-
dent learning. Since learning is the goal of education, student learning sits at the top of the model.
Faculty professional development has to occur in order for reflection to be effectively taught; assess-
ment has to occur to help us understand and improve our effectiveness in encouraging student
learning.
As our case study has indicated, reflection as a means of assessment, student learning, and faculty
professional development has opened up a host of enriching possibilities for our GE and disciplinary
curricula. When students are asked to reflect upon their learning, they are encouraged to understand
the goals of our curriculum, to build connections between learning contexts that facilitate transfer, and
to develop metacognitive skills. Faculty across the university can use reflections as part of their larger
program assessment and as a means of understanding how to improve teaching practices. Reflection
can be paired with other kinds of class activities or assessment measures to provide a broader view of
student learning.
Reflection can have a place in the many disciplines that comprise the higher education curricu-
lum. We encourage those seeking further resources for incorporating reflection to examine the work
of Fernsten and Fernsten (2005), who compiled guidelines for effective reflection assignments with
successful and unsuccessful examples of reflections from diverse disciplines and Yancey (1998) for
descriptions of using reflection as part of writing courses. Grossman (2009) work is also an excellent
reference guide for incorporating reflection into GE courses.
Reflection allows us to understand learning and adapt to its challenges. Like looking in a mirror,
reflections give us an additional way of seeing and a new way of talking about learning with our
students, colleagues, and administrators. Student reflections can help us better understand how our
students approach learning tasks. More importantly, reflections can reveal students’ beliefs and values
about those tasks—both of which are critical to understanding student learning behaviors. Because one
of the goals of writing programs is to encourage student learning in a wide variety of domains and
purposes, we see reflection as central to that goal. As we have argued in this article, investing in
carefully scaffolded reflection can yield a three-fold benefit for teaching, learning, and assessment in
a variety of academic settings.
 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55 51

Appendix A. Writing process reflection assignment and assessment rubric

Studies show that reflecting on your writing process can greatly aid you in becoming a better writer.
In a 600–800 word reflective essay, please answer the following questions about your experiences in
completing this assignment.

(1) Please describe your writing process for this assignment. This may include prewriting, drafting,
revising, editing, and collaboration.
(2) Please describe your research process for this assignment. This may include locating, evaluating,
and integrating sources.
(3) What are the strengths of your writing in this assignment?
(4) What parts of your writing in this assignment did you struggle with?
(5) What did you learn from this writing assignment?

Reading Scale Note: Consider level of detail and depth of insight

1 = Not there; completely “off”; 2 = Poor; 3 = Average; 4 = Good; 5 = Excellent

1. Writing process
a. Engagement in prewriting techniques* 1 2 3 4 5
b. Evidence of revision* (include diction) 1 2 3 4 5
c. Evidence of editing/proofreading* (surface) 1 2 3 4 5
d. Evidence of peer review (in class or online) 1 2 3 4 5
e. Evidence of faculty interaction (conferences) No Yes
f. Evidence of writing center visit No Yes

2. Research process
a. Evidence of locating peer-reviewed sources 1 2 3 4 5
using the library (including databases)
b. Evidence of selecting and evaluating sources 1 2 3 4 5
c. Evidence of integrating sources in APA format 1 2 3 4 5

3. Self-evaluation
a. Self-evaluation of strengths of writer 1 2 3 4 5
b. Self-evaluation of weaknesses of writer 1 2 3 4 5
c. Self-evaluation of quality of learning 2 3 4 5
i. Learning about writing and rhetoric 1 2 3 4 5
ii. Learning about research paper topic 1 2 3 4 5

4. Overall quality of reflection (non-cumulative; 1 2 3 4 5

holistic “grade”)
*
General education student learning outcomes.
Is collaboration is mentioned? Y/N
52 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55

Appendix B. Research paper assessment rubric

1 2 3 4 5

TOPIC Appropriate No apparent Weak Simplistic Recognizes & Nuanced

for focus; Does not response to treatment of addresses topic;
college-level respond to assignment; complex issue complexities of an Demonstrates
inquiry assignment Lacks issue intellectual
intellectual depth;
depth Awareness of
kairos
Thesis Never stated; Not Weak Makes a Specific, focused Complex
(problem clearly implied argument or general claim; inquiry or argument;
statement; shallow Developing argument Nuanced
research inquiry inquiry or inquiry
question) (statement of argument
fact)

AUDIENCE Organizational No Lacks Paragraphs or Purposeful Rhetorically

strategies intro/conclusion; coherence; sections arrangement; effective
(structure; Disorganized; Paragraphs clearly Could be improved organization
coherence) Lacks are connected; by moving 1-2¶s
understanding of disconnected Provides
paragraphing (lists or transitions
“boxcars”)
Synthesis Fewer than 2 Comp/contrast 2+ sources per Makes explicit Thematic
(thematic sources used; No of ¶ or section; connections among presentation
development; synthesis; No single-source Provides sources; Identifies of source
reader- context provided ¶s; Identifies source orig. aud./purpose material;
centered) sources w/out info/authors’ Detailed
discussion credentials context

CONTEXT Appropriate No outside Insufficient Includes Strong but not Academically

sources for sources (only sources for mixture of discipline-focused credi-
academic course texts academic strong/weak sources ble/scholarly
writing used) context sources sources
Appropriate Lacks Missing Pattern of Occasional Consistently
use of citation understanding of in-text error(s) in inconsistencies in correct APA
conventions documentation; citations; APA in-text or APA in-text citation in-text and
(APA) No references pg. In-text & ref. reference or reference format reference
citations don’t citations citations
match or not
used

PURPOSE Critical Misappropriation No Minimal Analyzes multiple Critical

analysis of or misinterpreta- commentary; analysis of views using evaluation &
source tion of sources; Multiple sources; sources interpreta-
material; Personal bias viewpoints Simplistic tion; Fair &
Manages not evaluation ethical
multiple recognized representation
viewpoints
Source Inappropriate Only repeats Source Evidence of Strategic
material used use of sources; the arguments material strategic selection presentation
as evidence to Irrelevant info.; or findings of discussed in of source material of source
support a No argument or others relation to (logos/pathos/ethos) material
claim findings claims targeted to
aud.

ETHOS Appropriate Biased language; Immature or Shifts in Generally Maintains

tone/register; Unsupported inappropriate person or tone appropriate level of respectful,
Non-biased judgments language; across formality with professional
use of Unsuitable sections of the occasional lapses language
language tone paper
Evidence of Language errors Number/type Noticeable Occasional lapses Polished,
editing/ interfere with of errors pattern of in surface nearly
proofreading meaning-making distorts error distracts correctness error-free
probable readers
meaning
 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55 53

Appendix C. Codes for extended analysis of weak and strong reflective essays

Understanding Writing Process

• Describing Writing Process (What): Students describe their writing process (usually step by step;
e.g., first I did this, then I did this, then I did that).
• Describing and Evaluating Writing Process Choices (Why/Effectiveness): Students not only
describe their writing process, but describe the choices that they made and why they made them
and/or describe the perceived effectiveness of their process.
• Learning about Writing (Higher Order): Students describe learning about a higher-order writ-
ing concern: synthesis, organization, genre, rhetorical awareness, etc.; the importance of revision,
collaboration, etc.
• Learning about Writing (Lower Order): Students describe learning about a lower-order writing
concern: wording, spelling, punctuation, grammar, formatting a references page.
• Learning about Citation Practices: Students discuss APA citation or general citation style.

Understanding Research Process

• Describing Research Process (What): Students describe their research process (usually step by
step; e.g., first I did this, then I did this, then I did that).
• Describing and Evaluating Research Process Choices (Why/Effectiveness): Students not only
describe their research process, but describe the choices that they made and why they made them
and/or describe the perceived effectiveness of their process.
• Learning about Research (General/Specific): Students describe learning about research practices,
such as searching, evaluating, library databases, etc.
• Learning about Topic (General/Specific): Students describe learning something new about the topic
of their paper.

Transfer of Learning

• Prior Knowledge (General/Specific): Students describe using and adapting prior knowledge effec-
tively.
• Current Knowledge (General/Specific): Students connect learning to other current contexts, includ-
ing current coursework, their personal or civic lives, their workplace (e.g., “I used my multimedia
writing skills to help my church put together a newsletter.”)
• Future Knowledge (General/Specific): Students anticipate new contexts where they will use writing
knowledge/skills (e.g., “I know I will need to write a senior honors thesis; the research skills I learned
in this class will aid me there.”)
• Engagement: Students adopt a different view of themselves as a learner, express openness to new
learning, recognize how they learn best; identify problems that are occurring (such as when they
need to seek help, when a strategy isn’t working), recognize strengths and weaknesses, and/or
evaluate past learning.

Lack of Transfer/Negative Transfer

• Emphasizing Differences: Students describe difficulty or challenges because of past experiences

(e.g., “Because this paper was longer than anything I wrote, I was intimidated to begin.”)
• Failed Application of Strategy: Students describe applying a previously learned strategy or tech-
nique that was not appropriate (e.g., 5 paragraph organization for 10 page paper)
• Resistance: Students deny learning or see learning as a game, just for getting a grade, etc.
54 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55

References

Adler-Kassner, L., & O’Neil, P. (2010). Reframing Writing Assessment to Improve Teaching and Learning. Logan: Utah State University
Press.
Andrade, G. (2007). Warts and all: Using student portfolio outcomes to facilitate a faculty development workshop. Assessing
Writing, 12, 199–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.02.002
Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48,
12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577544
Balgopal, M. M., & Montplaisir, L. M. (2011). Meaning making: What reflective essays reveal about biology students’ conceptions
about natural selection. Instructional Science, 39, 137–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9120-y
Beaufort, A. (2007). College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction. Logan: Utah State University
Press.
Blasco, P. G. (2011). Educating through movies: How Hollywood fosters reflection. Creative Education, 2, 174–180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2011.23024
Bonovitz, C. (2010). What is good technique? How to teach it? Personal reflections on psychoanalytic training. American Journal
of Psychoanalysis, 70, 65–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ajp.2009.48
Bresciani, M. J. (Ed.). (2007). Assessing student learning in general education: Good practice case studies. Boston, MA: Anker
Publishing.
Callahan, S. (2000). Responding to the invisible student. Assessing Writing, 7, 57–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S1075-2935(00)00016-7
Conference on College Composition and Communication [CCCC] Committee on Assessment. (2009). Writing Assessment: A
Position Statement. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/writingassessment.
Condon, W. (2009). Looking beyond judging and ranking: Writing assessment as a generative practice. Assessing Writing, 14,
141–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2009.09.004
Craft, M. (2005). Reflective writing and nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(2), 53–57.
Denton, D. (2011). Reflection and learning: Characteristics, obstacles, and implications. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43,
838–852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00600.x
Desmet, C., Miller, D. C., Griffin, J., Balthazor, R., & Cummings, R. E. (2008). Reflection, revision, and assessment in first-year
composition ePortfolios. Journal of General Education, 57, 16–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jge.0.0006
Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. New York, NY: Heath.
Driscoll, D. L. (2011). Connected, disconnected, or uncertain: Student attitudes about future writing contexts and
perceptions of transfer from first year writing to the disciplines. Across the Disciplines, 8(2). Retrieved from
http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/driscoll2011/index.cfm
ElonStatement on Writing Transfer [Working draft]. (2013, July 29). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/
NCTEFiles/Resources/Positions/WPAwritingassessment.pdf
Faigley, L., Cherry, R. D., Jolliffe, D. A., & Skinner, A. M. (1985). Assessing Writers’ Knowledge and Processes of Composing. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Fernsten, L., & Fernsten, J. (2005). Portfolio assessment and reflection: Enhancing learning through effective practice. Reflective
Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 6, 303–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940500106542
Galea, S. (2012). Reflecting reflective practice. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44, 245–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00652.x
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in preservice teacher education.
Theory into Practice, 42, 181–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203 3
Grossman, R. (2009). Structures for facilitiating student reflection. College Teaching, 57(1), 15–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3200/CTCH.57.1.15-22
Haskell, R. E. (2000). Transfer of Learning: Cognition and Instruction. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hilgers, T. L., Hussey, E. L., & Stitt-Bergh, M. (2000). The case for prompted self-assessment in the writing classroom. In J. B. Smith,
& K. B. Yancey (Eds.), Self-assessment and development in writing: A collaborative inquiry (pp. 1–24). Creskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Morozov, A. (2011). Student attitudes toward the assessment criteria in writing-intensive college courses. Assessing Writing, 16,
6–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.09.001
National Council of Teachers of English & Council of Writing Program Administrators [NCTE-WPA]. (2008). NCTE-WPA
White Paper on Writing Assessment in Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/
Resources/Positions/WPAwritingassessment.pdf.
National Research Council. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist,
47(3), 248–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.693354
Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual
traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009031605464
Reynolds, N., & Rice, R. (2006). Portfolio Teaching: A Guide for Instructors. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
Reiff, M. J., & Bawarshi, A. (2011). Tracing discursive resources: How students use prior genre knowledge to negoti-
ate new writing contexts in first-year composition. Written Communication, 28, 312–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0741088311410183
Rickards, W. H., Diez, M. E., Ehley, L., Guilbault, L. F., Loacker, G., Hart, J. R., & Smith, P. C. (2008). Learning, reflec-
tion, and electronic portfolios. Stepping toward an assessment practice Journal of General Education :., 57, 31–50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jge.0.0008
Robertson, L., Taczak, K., & Yancey, K. B. (2012). Notes toward a theory of prior knowledge and its role in college composers’
transfer of knolwedge and practice. Composition Forum, 26. Retrieved from http://compositionforum.com/issue/26/prior-
knowledge-transfer.php.
 E.G. Allan, D.L. Driscoll / Assessing Writing 21 (2014) 37–55 55

Russell, D. R., & Yañez, A. (2003). Big picture people rarely become historians: Genre systems and the contradictions of general
education. In C. Bazerman, & D. R. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp.
331–362). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves societies/.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking the mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational
Psychologist, 24, 113–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2402 1
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. A. (1995). Causality and casual inference in the study of organizations. In R. F. Goodman, & W. R. Fisher (Eds.), Rethinking
knowledge: Reflections across the disciplines (pp. 69–103). Albany: SUNY Press.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
Scott, T. (2005). Creating the subject of portfolios: Reflective writing and the conveyance of institutional perogatives. Written
Communication, 22, 3–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088304271831
Slomp, D. H. (2012). Challenges in assessing the development of writing ability: Theories, constructs and methods. Assessing
Writing, 17, 81–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2012.02.001
Sommers, J. (1988). Behind the paper: Using the student–teacher memo. College Composition and Communication, 39, 77–80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/357824
Sommers, J. (2011). Reflection revisited: Using the class collage. Journal of Basic Writing, 30(1), 99–129.
Taczak, K. (2011). Connecting the Dots: Does Reflection Foster Transfer? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State Univer-
sity: Tallahassee (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Tillman, L. C. (2003). Mentoring, reflection, and reciprocal journaling. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 226–233.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203 9
Wang, X., & Hurley, S. (2012). Assessment as a scholarly activity?: Faculty perceptions of and willingness to engage in student
learning assessment. Journal of General Education, 61, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jge.2012.0005
Wardle, E. (2007). Understanding ‘transfer’ from FYC: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study. WPA: Journal of Writing Program
Administrators, 31, 124–149.
Weiser, I. (1997). Revising our practices: How portfolios help teachers learn. In K. B. Yancey, & I. Weiser (Eds.), Situating Portfolios
(pp. 293–301). Logan: Utah State University Press.
Weiser, I., & Rose, S. (Eds.). (1999). The writing program administrator as researcher: Inquiry in action & reflection.. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Willard-Traub, M. K. (2008). Writing program administration and faculty professional development: Which faculty? What
development? Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 8, 433–445.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2008-004
Yancey, K. B. (1998). Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Yancey, K. B. (1999). Looking back as we look forward: Historicizing writing assessment. College Composition and Communication,
50, 483–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/358862
Yancey, K. B., & Huot, B. (1997). Assessing Writing Across the Curriculum: Diverse Approaches and Practices. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Elizabeth G. Allan, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Writing and Rhetoric at Oakland University. Her research interests include
writing across the curriculum/writing in the disciplines, writing pedagogy, literacy studies, and multimodal rhetorics in disci-
plinary contexts. She currently teaches courses in first-year writing, ethnography, and the histories of Western rhetorics.

Dana Lynn Driscoll, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Writing and Rhetoric at Oakland University. There, she teaches first-year
writing, peer tutoring in composition, global rhetoric, and courses in writing and rhetoric. Her research interests include transfer
of learning, research methodologies, and writing centers.