Journal of Academic Development and Education JADE Issue 10 | Page 46

46 | JADE ARTICLE #3 | 47 CAROLE WATKINS & VALERIE BALL 2013). Indeed if we are to promote using reflective practice for lifelong professional development (CSP 2015, HCPC 2012), we need to promote reflection from the beginning of the course; using writing reflective accounts to promote deeper learning (Shepherd 2010) in class, and on placement to nurture student’s confidence to clinically reason (Roche and Coote 2008). Race (2005b) identifies that feedback is a key factor underpinning successful learning and should both help the learner make sense of their work and enable them to believe they can achieve the intended learning outcomes of their assignment. He argues that the added benefit of peer review is the chance to review and apply assessment criteria to examples of work other than their own (some better, some not as good) enabling the learner to place their own work in context. By providing feedback by involving students in each other’s work also acts to generate deeper thinking than simply receiving feedback (Race 2005b). However evaluation from Phase 1 suggested that most students had lacked sufficient knowledge of critical reflection to be able to provide constructive feedback to their peers without significant tutor support. Boud (1986, cited in Nicol and Macfarlane- Dick 2006) emphasises that self and peer assessment skills require students to not only be able to apply standards/criteria to work but also be able to make judgements about how work relates to these standards. Orsmond et al (2002) argue that the use of ‘exemplars’ of performance is a powerful means of clarifying what is required within assignments as they provide a defined standard against which students can compare their own work. The Phase 2 evaluation clearly identified that the addition of the exemplars had not only provided students with more knowledge and understanding about critical as opposed to reportive writing but had also facilitated more understanding of what was required to successfully pass the assignment. The process of reading, critiquing, marking and discussing these exemplars may have facilitated a more guided and objective understanding of expectations, which could then be applied to their own and their peers work. This also enabled a change of tutor role from ‘expert marker’ in Phase 1 to ‘facilitator’ in Phase 2; able to help the students develop their understanding/correct misunderstandings, but no longer the only source of information and guidance. Some students in Phase 2 suggested the addition of mid-range summative exemplars. Whilst it could be argued that a this would benefit strategic learners i.e. those wanting to do the minimum to achieve a pass, it could be argued that a mid-range exemplar would enable students to more effectively perceive the gaps between poor, average and strong academic performance within the assignment. AN EVALUATION OF THE USE OF PEER REVIEW AS A FORMATIVE FEEDBACK PROCESS IN REFLECTIVE WRITING WITHIN PHYSIOTHERAPY EDUCATION Rushton (2005) and Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) both emphasise that feedback is only effective if it helps students close the gap between actual and desired performance. Whilst the use of exemplars is one strategy, this is likely to be insufficient without students understanding what further actions are required on enhance the quality and relevance of their work. One way to facilitate this gap closure is to encourage students to identify actions and strategies to improve their work (Hounsell 2004, cited in Nicol and Macfarlane- Dick 2006). The addition in Phase 2 of developing explicit action points in the session meant that students had specific actions to address which were the end result of a logical process of review and critique and so would hopefully be more meaningful for each individual. However, despite peer review having a high efficiency and learning payoff (Race 2005b) the ongoing desire by some students for tutor feedback for ‘reassurance’ was interesting. Race (2005a) expanding on work by Miller and Parlett (1974), suggest that some students may be cue-seekers who work hard to determine exactly what is required for assessments; that others may be cue-conscious and pay attention to ‘tips’ about assessments; and others cue-deaf and taking no notice of any ‘cues’ given. Whilst Phase 2 would still not benefit cue-deaf students, it may be that it satisfied the needs of cue-conscious students, whilst some cue-seekers still felt they needed tutor input to align their work most effectively to the assignment remit. Cue-seekers are likely to be the most demanding of highly critical constructive feedback (Race 2005a), and it may be that the emphasis on peer or ‘non-expert’ feedback will never provide enough assurance for some. Finally, the process of peer review formative assessment for reflective writing has to be evaluated when the literature largely supports the process in fact based assignments (Willey and Gardner 2010, Eldridge et al, 2013). In the ‘soft’ skills of reflection where there are no right and wrong answers the evidence is less supportive. Although peer assessment has been demonstrated in this article to promote ownership of the learning process, Patton (2012) found that students were less convinced of its pedagogical worth perceiving it to be a way of reducing tutors workload. However, for year one work we argue that tutor support is integral to prevent misconceptions being promoted by peers and carried forward to the summative assessment (Rourke, 2012) Conclusions This paper has described and explored the use and ongoing development of peer review as a formative feedback process for