Journal of Academic Development and Education JADE Issue 10 | Page 44

44 | JADE ARTICLE #3 | 45 CAROLE WATKINS & VALERIE BALL to allocate a provisional mark to each reflection by application of the assessment marking criteria. A plenary was used to identify and discuss the strengths and weaknesses in each example, the provisional marks awarded, and any questions/queries with regards to interpreting the marking criteria. The students then worked together in pairs to critique each other's work, before identifying explicit action points to develop and enhance their own reflections. The evaluation was repeated and compared with Phase 1, and both years summative assessment results were compared with previous cohorts Results Phase 1 From ‘free text’ comments (x 35 responses) students liked the clarity in structure, format and content of the session and had a greater understanding of the difference between reportive and reflective writing. They felt they had more understanding of how to improve their reflections and highlighted the value of the tutor support within the session. However the tutors noted that most students had insufficient knowledge of critical reflection to give constructive feedback to their peers, meaning that tutors were actively involved in providing feedback rather than taking a more facilitatory role in the session. Likert Scale responses (Phase 1 N=68) indicated that students considered the session useful or very useful in clarifying the requirements of the assignment (81%), identifying how to improve their work (75%) and the process of reflection (59%) (See Tables 1–3). The summative assignment results showed that this positive feedback was reflected in an increase in number of students passing (from 84% to 90%) and an increase in cohort mean mark. Based upon the session feedback, an action plan was formulated. Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick (2006) argue that peer review needs defined criteria and standards, and students need to identify their own action points at the end of the session so as to better understand how to move on from their current performance level. The plan was to introduce the use of exemplars of previous student performance to provide more guidance to students regarding what constitutes effective critical reflection to help mediate lack of students’ knowledge and understanding (Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick, 2006). Tutor contact time would be increased (longer session and smaller groups), students would formulate individual action plans at the end of the session. AN EVALUATION OF THE USE OF PEER REVIEW AS A FORMATIVE FEEDBACK PROCESS IN REFLECTIVE WRITING WITHIN PHYSIOTHERAPY EDUCATION Phase 2 Students reported in ‘free text’ comments (x 42 responses) that they liked the clarity provided in understanding the expectations of the assignment and how to improve on their current level of performance. They valued the process of reading, critiquing and marking previous submissions and felt that they had gained a better understanding of what was required to achieve a successful submission. Reading these previous submissions was also identified as beneficial by making the students focus more on the differences between reportive and reflective writing, with several students reporting that they now felt more able to identify changes required to achieve a more reflective submission. However students still expressed concerns about peer review being sufficient to identify problems with their work due to student inexperience in reviewing assessments, and some students requested tutor feedback on their work as well ‘to make sure peer review is correct’. Some students also suggested than an additional mid-range summative example might help in differentiating the quality of a successful submission, and that being able to review the summative examples prior to the session might be beneficial. The Likert scale responses showed improvement in all areas as students found the session useful or very useful in clarifying the remit of the assignment (89%), identifying how to improve their reflections (85%) and facilitating more thought about the process of reflection (84%) (See Tables 1–3). A review of the summative assignment results showed that this positive feedback was reflected in a further increase in pass rate (91.5%) and cohort mean mark. Discussion There appear to be significant barriers to these physiotherapy students being able to effectively reflect; there is a dearth of literature on the barriers to reflective writing in first year undergraduate health students demonstrating a need for further research in this area. A previous study (Wong-Wylie, 2007) suggests that discussing reflections may be enhanced by discussion with peers but may also be inhibited by non-reflective students in the group. Anecdotally all the participating lecturers supported the notion that students in their first year struggle with the concept of reflection as a higher order critical skill, suggesting that having recently been in further education where fact based learning predominates may be a factor in this gap. The authors, while accepting these limitations, are keen for reflection to remain in the curriculum in year one of the programme and suggest using a reflective template or reflective journal guide to aid reflection as they have been demonstrated to promote the reflective learning process (Kennison 2012, Constantinou and Kuys