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