Abstract:

This study examines how students’ reflective writing differs across achievement tiers in a university introduction to photography course. Guided reflections were collected over two semesters and compared across students who were grouped as high-, mid-, or low-achieving using performance indicators such as assignment grades, exam grades, final course grade, number of late submissions, and bonus assignment completion. Two digital text analysis tools were used for the analysis process—ChatGPT for qualitative and quantitative analysis and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) for quantitative analysis. Initial quantitative analysis used averages from the indicators to determine the validity of the researcher-developed break points between the achievement groups and identify any discrepancies. ChatGPT quantitative analysis evaluated differences in word count frequency of technical vocabulary and cognitive markers. LIWC quantitative analysis evaluated tone, confidence, authenticity, and analytics, among others.

Qualitative thematic analysis, developed through structured coding proxies, was used to identify differences in two areas:
(1) specificity (concrete examples, assignment-specific details, and use of technical terminology) and
(2) emotional and ownership language (first-person sense making, acknowledgement of struggle, and statements of growth).

Results show that there are distinctions between all three groups of students in their reflections but the most notable differences were found between the high-/mid- and the low-achieving student groups. Although the high-achieving students excelled in these metrics when compared with the mid-, both high- and mid-achieving students wrote reflections that were anchored in the work. They named processes, concepts, and task constraints. They also explained choices and revisions in clear cause-and-effect terms. Reflections from low-achieving students were more likely to stay general in their use of technical terminology and focus on the effort involved to complete the task while exhibiting less ownership over the results. These patterns position guided reflection as a form of disciplinary literacy and learning to think within the epistemology of a field. Student success appears linked not only to technical performance, but also to the ability to describe, justify, and iterate their learning experience using the specific language inherent to the field of study.

Keywords:

Reflective writing, disciplinary literacy, assessment.