\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[affil-it]{authblk}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{colorlinks=false,pdfborder={0 0 0}}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}




\begin{document}

\title{Learner Reflective Behaviors In Web-Based Portfolio
Assessment}


 \author{Cheng Chi-Cheng Cheng-Chuan Chen\\
National Taiwan Normal University}


\date{\today}

\maketitle




\section{Abstract}\label{abstract}


This research attempted to categorize reflective thinking in a Web-based
portfolio assessment using the Chinese Information Processing System
(CIPS). Another aim of this research was to explore reflective
performance in which individual differences were further examined.
Participants were 45 second-grade students from a junior high school
taking a computer course. The study results indicated that: 1) the words
used most often in reflective journals fell into \emph{cognition} and
\emph{evaluation} category in comparison to \emph{emotion} and
\emph{memory}. Based on lexical attributes, reflective thinking was thus
classified into \emph{cognition, evaluation} and \emph{mix}. Cognition
was the most common type, and \emph{evaluation}, the least;
\emph{emotion} and \emph{memory} type failed to emerge. 2) Although
reflective journals tended to be short, the average scores on reflection
were acceptably high, which implied it was the quality rather than the
length of journal entries that students were primarily concerned about.
In addition, significant group differences were detected in terms of
word counts and reflection scores. 3) The reviews of peer reflections
were seldom fulfilled, and covered merely one-third of the peer work;
there were notable group differences related to the number of reviews.
4) The duration of peer reflection reviews was usually short, and again,
remarkable differences were found across various duration groups.

\textbf{Keywords:} Portfolio; Web-based portfolio; Portfolio assessment;
Reflection; Chinese Information Processing

\section{1. Introduction}\label{introduction}


The developmental process of learning portfolios entails projection of
purpose, collection, selection, reflection, and presentation (Barrett,
2010; Barrett \& Garrett, 2009; Falls, 2001). It is critical that
portfolio development allows students to establish learning goals and to
identify their strengths as well as weaknesses. Falls (2001) noted
reflective practice plays an indispensable role in portfolio creation,
for it is particularly instrumental for students. Tomkinson (2002)
presented a four-stage scheme related to portfolio
development-reflection, inspection, reaction, and documentation. It is
commonly accepted that one of the advantages of portfolio assessment is
the promotion of learner reflection (Coombe and Barlow, 2004;
Lopez-Fernandez \& Rodriguez-Illera 2009; Tubaishat, Lansari, \&
Al-Rawi, 2009; Wang 2009). Web portfolios, in turn, can be regarded as
an authentic process that documents and fosters reflective thoughts
(Avraamidou and Zembal-Saul, 2002; Carroll, \& Markauskaite, Calvo,
2007;.Milman, 1999; Morris and Buckland, 2000; Zembal-Saul, 2001). A
study conducted by Hawkes and Romiszowski (2001) showed that
computer-mediated reflections achieved a significantly higher level than
did face-to-face reflections. Hence, it is concluded that learners'
involvement in reflective activities should be valuable and beneficial
in the context of Web-based portfolio assessments.


Given that learner reflections are associated with cognition and emotion
elements, an issue has been raised regarding how to organize, classify
and evaluate reflection contents. With respect to reflective behaviors,
Morgan (1999) reported a hierarchy with four levels of reflective
thinking: \emph{Not qualified, Fair, Good}, and \emph{Excellent}.
Teachers from South Brunswick schools adopted assessment criteria
comprising \emph{purpose of reflection}, \emph{supportability},
\emph{systematicity}, \emph{sentence structure} and \emph{vocabulary and
writing mechanics,} each of which was accompanied with a four-level
scheme (King-Shaver, 1999). Cheng (2002), who assessed reflective
thinking in a Web-based portfolio setting, discovered that students
generally performed medium level and failed to attain higher level of
reflection. This study result was supported by several researchers. Lin
(2004) indicated although \emph{shallow} and \emph{deep} types were
found existing, students tended to perform the former type more
frequently. Likewise, Wood (2001) concluded students had higher
possibility to operate \emph{pre-reflective thinking}, comparing to
\emph{quasi-reflective} or \emph{reflective thinking}. A study conducted
by Li (2002) suggested lower levels of reflective thinking appeared to
be more accessible to high school students. In other words, previous
investigations have revealed the tendency of reflective thinkers toward
lower levels of reflection.

When it comes to the types of reflection, a number of researchers have
made classifications from multiple perspectives. Santos (1997)
categorized reflective thinking into four processes. \emph{Reviewing
process} refers to the improvement in learning for which one looks at
the past and learns from it in order to avoid the same mistakes;
\emph{contemplative process} enables one engaged in self-observation or
introspection; \emph{comparing process} talks about a learner's
self-examination of the extent to which anticipated goals are fulfilled;
\emph{judging process} involves self-assessment on learning performances
and progress. On the other hand, Kember (1999) treated reflection as a
double-faced notion containing \emph{reflective} and
\emph{non-reflective action}; more specifically, reflective action is
made up for several subdivisions, such as \emph{content, process}, and
\emph{premise reflection}. According to Lin's (2004) categorization,
students' journals were generally characterized by \emph{affective,
self-aware}, and \emph{integrative} reflection. In the study of
vocabulary analysis, Avrramidou and Zembal-Saul (2002) identified a
four-stage trend that reflection authors shifted from being
\emph{descriptive} to being \emph{explanatory, reflective,} and
\emph{elaborative}. In conclusion, the essence of reflection lies in
one's knowledge, reasoning, conception and learning beliefs.

Recognizing the importance of learning reflections, scholars and
researchers classified reflections into various levels and types. Due to
the diversity of reflective practice, learners are expected to perform
differently, leading to a variety of evaluation methods and ways of
classification. In the context of Web-based portfolio assessment,
however, what levels and types of reflection take place, and in which
way it can be appropriately sorted out? Besides, another issue remained
unanswered is concerned with the representations of reflective behaviors
and its applicable methods of evaluation. Rama and Battistoni (2001)
suggested that the number and duration of reflective practice can serve
as powerful indicators in portfolio learning. Thus, to evaluate
reflections assessors should not only take into account the quality of
reflection work, but also word count of reflective journals as well as
the number and duration of peer reviews. On the other hand, a study
conducted by Irby and Brown (1999) revealed that students shared a
similar length of reflective journals, drawing our attention to the
question about whether or not there are patent differences between
individual learner in reflective behaviors.


In response to the issues discussed above, the purpose of this study was
to investigate reflective behaviors (types and performances), and to
find the differences related to individual reflective performance. The
research questions are as follows:


1. In reflective journals, what types of vocabulary are used? What is
the frequency usage of each vocabulary type? How many types are
reflections classified into? What is the frequency usage of each
reflection type?


2. What are students' reflective performance in terms of the number of
words in journals, the number and duration of peer reflection reviews,
and the overall quality of reflection?


3. Are there significant individual differences in reflective
performance?


\section{2. Method}\label{method}


\subsection{2.1. Participants}\label{participants}


The subjects were 45 students in a computer course at a junior high
school. The duration of the study was a 10-week period with 2 sessions
for each week. Students were required to undertake portfolio creation,
self- and peer-assessment on the Web-based portfolio assessment system.
To develop a portfolio, the students had to be engaged in the following
activities, i.e. goal setting, reflection, on-line submission, work
display, etc. The 2-unit computer course addressed ``Computer
Animation'' and ``Timeline Control''; for each unit, an assignment had
to be completed by using software such as Photoimpact, Dreamweaver MX.
The course content covered not only technical skills but cognitive and
affective domain, which in turn offered students an ideal scenario for
reflective practice.


\subsection{2.2. Framework}\label{framework}


In this study, the CIPS system was employed in order to sort out
different types of reflections related to Web-based portfolio
assessments. On the other hand, the researchers put together students'
recorded performances and scores in order to statistically compare the
possible differences in reflective performance. Below are the variables
involved in this study:


\begin{quote}
1. \emph{Reflective types} were derived from the CIPS system, including
\emph{cognition, emotion, evaluation, memory}, and \emph{mix} type.

2. \emph{Reflective performance} were concerned the with the word counts
in a reflective journal, the number and duration of peer reflection
reviews, and the scores on reflection.
\end{quote}


\subsection{2.3. Research process}\label{research-process}


\begin{quote}
\emph{1. Tool Selection and Design}

To collect and document students' reflective contents and behaviors, we
designed a Web-based portfolio assessment system, and the quality of
reflective contents was further discriminated using a reflection scale
developed by Wu (2007). Vocabulary used in reflective journals was
classified based on the CIPS system.

\emph{2. Procedure of Experiment}

Stage 1(preparation): The teacher began the course with a brief overview
of Learning portfolios, and provided tips for writing reflective
journals. After course introduction and demonstration of the Web-based
portfolio assessment system, the teacher would help students to become
familiar with the system functions by hands-on experiences.

Stage 2 (Unit 1): The first unit talking about ``Computer Animation''
was taught aligning with the assessment system. Outside the classes, the
students were responsible for a number of course activities, such as
portfolio development, on-line discussion, peer reflection reviews and
self- and peer-assessment. To create a portfolio, the ensuing work must
have been completed by filling out the forms available, including goal
setting, reflection writing, work submission, and so on. Afterwards, the
teacher and assistants would assess students' performances on the basis
of portfolio contents and learning behaviors.

Stage 3 (Unit 2): For better learning efficiency, the teacher gave
instructions and assistance focusing on students' problems or
difficulties encountered in the previous course unit. Subsequently, this
unit about ``Timeline Control'' was then started with the students
repeating the coursework and activities as Unit 1.

Stage 4 (oral presentation): For this stage, students were required to
deliver an oral presentation covering their portfolio contents, and to
share experiences as well as advice on portfolio construction.
\end{quote}


\emph{3. Data Collection}


The recorded information available on the assessment system was
collected, including a student's written journals, scores and reflective
behaviors centering on the number of words in journals as well as the
number and duration of peer reflection reviews.


4. Data Organization and Analysis


Phase 1: Data Organization


(1) Data organization


\begin{quote}
The researchers started this part of work by carefully examining the
reflective journal documents and having those incorrect words revised.
Reflective contents were then compiled, according to its common
attributes, and organized into textual data.
\end{quote}


(2) Unit of Analysis


In this study, a ``segment'', or ``token'', was chosen as the minimal
unit of analysis, based on the Chinese Word Segmentation System.


Phase 2: Data Analysis (see Figure 1)


(1) Input


The contents of reflection were uploaded to the CIPS system.


(2) Word Segmentation


\begin{quote}
The CIPS system dealt with this part of work by marking up the words in
the reflection journals with corresponding part-of-speech tags.
\end{quote}


(3) Extraction


\begin{quote}
The researchers specifically focused on various types of stative verbs
in Chinese, e.g. intransitive verbs, causative verbs, transitive verbs,
etc.
\end{quote}


(4) Classification of Vocabulary and Word Frequency Count


\begin{quote}
The researchers, with the help of Mandarin teachers and expert, worked
together on grouping up vocabulary (i.e. stative verbs) into types, and
counting the frequency usage of each type of words within a journal
entry.
\end{quote}


(5) Types of Reflection


\begin{quote}
For this part, we continued to have the categorization of vocabulary
well-examined by repeated comparison, organization and cross-validation.
Three types of reflection were ultimately determined after we removed
repeatedly categorized words, and wiped out barely used vocabulary
types.
\end{quote}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Figure-1/Figure-1}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

Figure 1. Flowchart of data processing


Phase 3: Double-check


The main purpose for this stage was to re-examine, at different points
in time, our prior work related to data organization and processing.


\subsection{2.4. Research Instrument}\label{research-instrument}


\subsubsection{2.4.1. Web-based Portfolio Assessment
Scale}\label{web-based-portfolio-assessment-scale}


1. Assessment Scale


The Web-based portfolio assessment scale created by Wu (2007) was
adopted in order to measure students' learning performances based on the
quality of their portfolios. The assessment scale is six-dimensional and
covers \emph{portfolio creation, learning goal, artifact, reflection,
attitude,} and \emph{other,} among which reflection performance was of
primary interest in this research project. Furthermore, scores were
calculated using a five-point Likert scale.


In this assessment scale, ``reflection scale'' was specifically designed
for the evaluation of a student's reflection contents, looking at the
following aspects: goal setting, artifact, learning achievement,
attitude, peer review and feedback. A student's reflection score was
determined by the grade he/she acquired on this reflection scale.


2. Scale Reliability


With regard to the reflection scale, the Cronbach's value for Unit 1 and
Unit 2 was 0.819 and 0.864, respectively. The results indicated both
tests achieved high reliability, and were parallel to Wu's (2007)
findings in which the Cronbach's was measured as 0.923.


3. Scale Validity


In Wu's (2007) factor analysis, the accumulated variance of the
assessment scale was 72.09\%, and the reflection scale, 89\%. This
implied that the assessment scale and the reflection scale had high
validity.


An approach of factor analysis-Principal Component Analysis (PCA)-and
the varimax method were used conducting the orthogonal rotation approach
in order to examine the appropriateness and accuracy of the reflection
scale. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values for each test were greater
than 0.5, meaning that factor analysis could be applied. To construct
validity using PCA, the accumulated variances for both unit courses
exceeded 70\%, which meant the reflection scale had a high validity.


\subsubsection{2.4.2. Chinese Word Segmentation
System}\label{chinese-word-segmentation-system}


The CIPS system was employed dealing with word segmentation of
reflection journal documents. The Chinese lexical database available in
this system contains about 100,000 vocabulary words accompanied with pos
tags, word frequencies, pos tag bigram information, etc. It is a
state-of-the-art system, with unknown word identification and syntactic
category prediction, which was ranked first at the International Chinese
Word Segmentation Bakeoff. Due to its high accuracy and consistency
(Tsai, 2004; Chen \& Bai, 2000), we found it well-suited and efficient
in data analysis: it is not only time- and labor-saving, but helps the
improvement of reliability as well as validity.


In addition to word segmentation, the CIPS system is also equipped with
word-tagging capability by dividing lexicon into active verbs, stative
verbs as well as other parts of speech such as conjunctions, adverbs,
nouns, and pronouns (Institute of Information, 2007). In Chinese a
stative verb can be modified by an adjective; otherwise, verbs that do
not belong to this kind are considered as active verbs. However, in
psycholinguistics active verbs are not suited for the interpretation of
psychological states. In this study, we then placed focus on stative
verbs that served as references for our classification work of
reflective thinking.


The following lists the process of reflection categorization using the
CIPS system (Figure 1):


1. The contents of reflection were uploaded to the CIPS system.


2. The CIPS system dealt with this part of work by marking up the words
in the reflection journals with corresponding part-of-speech tags.


3. The researchers specifically focused on various types of stative
verbs in Chinese, e.g. intransitive verbs, causative verbs, transitive
verbs, etc.


4. The researchers, with the help of Mandarin teachers and expert,
worked together on grouping up vocabulary (i.e. stative verbs) into
types, and counting the frequency usage of each type of words within a
journal entry.


5. Three types of reflection were ultimately determined after the
researchers coped with overlapping classification of certain words, and
wiped out barely used vocabulary types.


\section{3. Results and Discussion}\label{results-and-discussion}


\subsection{3.1. Types of reflection}\label{types-of-reflection}


In each reflective journal entry, stative verbs were extracted using the
CIPS system, and four kinds of psychological state words and its number
of occurrence were summarized. Considering that some stative verbs might
be categorized into more than one vocabulary type, the researchers
continued to scrutinize and filter overlapping classification. For
example, preliminary estimates suggested that Student 1104 wrote a
reflective journal with \emph{cognition} type of words used 22 times;
\emph{memory}, 0; \emph{emotion}, 2; and \emph{evaluation}, 24. After
taking out repeated classified words (Appendix 3), the result was
further refined as follows: \emph{cognition}, 12; \emph{memory}, 0;
\emph{emotion}, 2; and \emph{evaluation}, 14.

Table 1 illustrates that, according to the frequency usage, cognition
was the most commonly used vocabulary type following by evaluation;
memory held the least users. This finding suggested reflective thinkers
had preference to cognition and evaluation type in vocabulary use.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Table-1/Table-1}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

Table 1 Percentage of individual use of stative verbs (part of samples)


Initially, the categorization of reflection was determined by the degree
to which each vocabulary type-\emph{cognition, emotion, memory,} and
\emph{evaluation-}was used by individual student. It was discovered,
however, emotion and memory words were nearly invisible in students'
journals. In light of this, we then proposed a 3-category scheme
consisting of \emph{cognition, evaluation} and \emph{mix} in which
emotion and memory were not put in. Below are detailed descriptions of
eligible reflective thinkers for each type:

\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi})}
\item
  Cognition type refers to those reflective authors who are inclined to
  cognition words comparing to evaluation, and the rest two vocabulary
  types are barely occurred in this case.
\item
  Evaluation type talks about a reflective author who dominantly selects
  evaluation words over cognition, whereas the other two vocabulary
  types are barely used.
\item
  Mix type includes two kinds of circumstances of vocabulary use. It
  covers those who use nearly equal amount of cognition and evaluation
  words, and the rest two vocabulary types are scarcely used. Secondly,
  reflective authors can be also labeled as mix type if three or more
  types of vocabulary are found, and each type should be responsible for
  over 10\% of word use.
\end{enumerate}


As Table 2 outlines, the students fell into three categories, namely
cognition, evaluation and mix, while memory and emotion failed to
emerge. Additionally, it was also shown that cognition type held at
least half of the students. Comparable study results were found by a
number of researchers, such as Eppink (2002), Li (2002), Lin (2004),
Kember (1999). In these previous investigations, it was concluded that
meta-cognition or cognition type generally accounts for substantial
portion of reflective practice.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Table-2/Table-2}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

Table 2 Percentage distribution of reflective types\\



\subsection{3.2. Reflective performance}\label{reflective-performance}


\subsubsection{3.2.1. Word count in reflection
journals}\label{word-count-in-reflection-journals}


Counting only relevant and meaningful text, Unit 1 had an average length
of 345.6 words per person; Unit 2, 285.9 words. Adding it up, each
person wrote on average 631.5 words. Each student was asked to edit a
total of 69 journal entries, so that the average length of an entry was
274.6 words per person. This statistical analysis showed the general
journal lengths were still far from satisfaction.


\subsubsection{3.2.2. Number of peer reflection reviews
}\label{number-of-peer-reflection-reviews}


Reviews were taken out if it was occurred in the test period or did not
exceed 5-second minimum. For both Unit 1 and Unit 2, the average number
of reviews was measured as 4.5 times per person. To sum up, individual
average for the entire course was 9.1, indicating that students read
only some of the peer journals, or one-third of it at best.


\subsubsection{3.2.3 Duration of peer reflection
reviews}\label{duration-of-peer-reflection-reviews}


Reviews were taken out if it was occurred in the test period or did not
exceed 5-second minimum. As the course unit went through, the mean
duration per person reduced from 21.9 to 12.2 minutes. Taken together,
the average duration per person for the entire course was 34 minutes;
individual duration per review was 3.8. The finding suggested students
seemed invest insufficient time reviewing peer journals.


\subsubsection{3.2.4. Quality of
reflection}\label{quality-of-reflection}


At each stage of our research project, there were always approximately
77\% of the students being ranked into high-score or medium-score
groups, and only a small portion of them (23\%) were not. This coincided
with Cheng's (2002) statement: the majority of students had the ability
to show high-quality reflection outcomes.


\subsection{3.3. Overall reflective
performance}\label{overall-reflective-performance}


In Table 3, reflective performance were classified into \emph{high,
medium} and \emph{low} groups according to four kinds of reflective
performance. Table 4 outlines the study result using the analysis of
variance (ANOVA), in which the F-value for each kind of reflective
behavior achieved significance level (Table 5). In addition,
``reflection score'' yielded the largest estimated effect size (0.42),
and ``number of peer reflection reviews'' had the least (0.218). That is
to say, the differences among ``reflection score'' groups were the
largest, and ``number of peer reflection reviews'' groups had the
smallest differences.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Table-3/Table-3}
\caption{{Replace this text with your caption%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Table-4/Table-4}
\caption{{Replace this text with your caption%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Table-5/Table-5}
\caption{{Replace this text with your caption%
}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{4. Conclusion}\label{conclusion}


This research project was geared toward the taxonomy of reflection
contents with the implementation of the CIPS system. According to the
frequency of occurrence, the ranking of four types of vocabulary ( i.e
stative verbs) is \emph{cognition, evaluation, emotion,} and
\emph{memory,} from high to low. It was discovered the former two types
were utilized a lot more than the latter two. In other words, students
showed the ability to spontaneously become engaged in critical thinking
and self-inspection given their preference for cognition and evaluation
words. In order to have the categorization meaningful, we eliminated
those barely used vocabulary types, i.e. emotion and memory, and
eventually proposed three types of reflection-\emph{cognition,
evaluation}, and \emph{mix}. Among them, cognition type was the most
common one following by mix type, whereas evaluation type was rarely
seen.

Although reflective journals in overall appeared to be short, the
average reflection score was moderately high. That is to say, in writing
journals students placed focus on quality over quantity. According to
the ANOVA test, remarkable group differences were detected not only
across word count groups (the average words per person) but also
reflection score groups (the average score per person).


Furthermore, students generally had an inadequate number of peer
reflection reviews, and they only read about one-third of the peer work.
The ANOVA test revealed there were notable group differences in terms of
the number of reviews. The time students spent on reviewing was scanty
as well, with the average duration of 4 minutes per person each time. In
the ANOVA test, significant group differences were also found across
``duration of peer reflection reviews'' groups.


In this paper, word counts in a journal were treated as independent
variables, for our assessment system was not equipped with function to
figure out how much time a student had invested in editing a journal
entry. If not so, we would have been able to delve into reflective
behaviors related to writing time. Besides, it seemed to be integral and
full-fledged that students had access to guidelines and strategies for
the composition of reflection, and teachers on the other hand were
always ready to offer instructions. However, the truth was a handful of
students still encountered difficulties including lack of vocabulary and
inability to select proper words. It is desirable instructors should
provide them with appropriate and abundant vocabulary, so that the
quality of reflection contents will be enhanced.


This study aimed to gain further understandings of reflective practice
by analyzing the word frequency in reflection journals. Even so, we yet
found a great number of questions and topics researchable, such as the
extent to which reflection outcomes mirror a learner's mental growth as
well as academic achievements. It is recommended that researchers or
scholars who are interested in related issues should deepen the scope of
investigations into those underlying implications and messages within
it.


\section{References}\label{references}


Avraamidou, L., \& Zembal-Saul, C. (2002). \emph{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. \emph{On the Horizon, 17}(2) 2009, 142-152.


Barrett, H. (2010). Balancing the two faces of ePortfolios.


Carroll, N. L., \& Markauskaite, L., Calvo, R.A. (2007). E-portfolios
for developing transferable skills in a freshman engineering course.
\href{http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=13}{\emph{IEEE
Transactions on}} \emph{Education, 50}(4), 360-366.


\emph{Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language
Processing, 5(}1), 1-18.

Chen, K. J., \& Bai, M. H.(1998). Unknown word detection for Chinese by
a corpus-based learning method. \emph{Computational Linguistics and
Chinese Language Processing}, \emph{3}(1), 27-44.


Cheng, Y. W. (2002). \emph{The design and application of Web-based
reflective portfolio.} Unpublished master's thesis, National Taiwan
Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.


Coombe, C., \& Barlow, L. (2004). The reflective portfolio: Two case
studies from the United Arab Emirates. \emph{Forum Online, 42}(1).
Retrieved June 15, 2010, from
http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol42/no1/p18.htm.


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). \emph{Using a reflective process to implement
electronic portfolios}. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Blacksburg,
VA: The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.


Hawkes, M., \& Romiszowski A. (2001). Examining the reflective outcomes
of asynchronous computer-mediated communication on inservice teacher
development. \emph{Journal of} \emph{Technology and Teacher Education,
9}(2), 283-306.


Irby, B. J., \& Brown, G. (1999). \emph{A gendered dichotomy in written
reflections in professional development portfolios.} Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.


Kember, D. (1999). Determining the level of reflective thinking from
students' written journals using a coding scheme based on the work of
Mezirow. \emph{International Journal of} \emph{Lifelong Education,
18}(1), 18-30.


King-Shaver, B. (1999). Reflection and portfolios across the curriculum.
In L. Reid and J. N. Golub (Eds.), \emph{Reflective Activities: Helping
Students Connect with Text. Classroom Practices in Teachers of English}
(pp.156-165). IL, Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.


Li, Q. R. (2002). \emph{The exploration of the reflective thinking of
the second-grader senior high students on gas property changes.}
Unpublished master's thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan.


Lin, H. C. (2003). \emph{A study of elementary school
third-graders'reflective features in learning diaries.} 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.
\emph{Computers \& Education, 52}, 608--616.


Institute of Information (2007). \emph{The} \emph{Chinese Word
Segmentation System}. Retrieved July10, 2010, from
\href{http://ckipsvr.iis.sinica.edu.tw/}{http://ckipsvr.iis.sinica.edu.tw}.

Milman, N. B. (1999). Web-based electronic teaching portfolios for
preservice teachers. In J. D. Price, J. Willis, D. A. Willis, M. Jost,
and S. Boget-Mehall (Eds.), \emph{Proceedings of 10\textsuperscript{th}}
\emph{International Conference of the Society for Information Technology
and Teacher} \emph{Education 1999} (pp.1174-1179). Charlottesville, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Morris, J., \& Buckland, H. (2000). \emph{Electronic portfolios for
learning and assessment.} Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego,
California.


Rama, D. V., \& Battistoni, R. (2001). Structuring the reflection
process. \emph{Service learning Website.} Retrieved June 9, 2010, from
http://www.compact.org/disciplines/reflection/structuring/decisions.html.


Reckase, M. D. (2002). \emph{Portfolio research}. Paper presented at the
Workshop on Portfolio Assessment, December 16\textasciitilde{}18,
Taipei, Taiwan.


Santos, M. G. (1997). Portfolio assessment and the role of learner
reflection. \emph{English Teaching Forum online, 35}(2), 10. Retrieved
June 9, 2010, from
http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol35/no2/p10.htm.


Sparks-Langer, G. M., Simmons, J. M., Pasch, M., Colton, A., \& Starko,
A (1990). Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and
measure it? \emph{Journal of Teacher Education, 41}(5), 23-32.


Tsai, Y. F. (2004). \emph{Chinese word segmentation and POS tagging.}
Retrieved July 10, 2010, from
\url{http://dlm.ntu.edu.tw/dlm/93NDAP/professional/pro-930906-7/8B.pdf}.


Tomkinson, B. (2002). A \emph{reflective} approach to teaching and
learning. Teaching and Learning Support Centre. Retrieved June 25, 2010,
from
\url{http://ctls.concordia.ca/pdf/resources/reflective.approach.to.teaching.pdf}.


Tubaishat, A., Lansari, A., \& Al-Rawi, A. (2009). E-portfolio
assessment system for an outcome-based information technology
curriculum. \emph{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, 449-460.


Whitfield, A. (2000). Student teacher self-assessment: A proposed method
of professional development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New
Orleans, LA: University of New Orleans.


Wood, P. K. (2001). \emph{Summary of reflective judgment levels.}
Retrieved June 9, 2010, from
http://web.missouri.edu/\textasciitilde{}wood/html/refl.judg.html.


Wu, M. F. (2007). \emph{Construction of the rubrics, reliability and
validity of Web-based portfolio assessment.} Unpublished master's
thesis, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.


Zembal-Saul, C. (2001). \emph{Web-based portfolios in a professional
development school context.} Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{CJK}\end{document}

