Refassessment (3)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Refassessment (3)






Total Views
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Refassessment (3) Refassessment (3) Document Transcript

    • Reflection & Education 3: Assessment “Assessment is a difficult issue when it concerns reflective material. A fair question is that since reflection is an encouragement for learners to follow the lines of their own thinking, to work without a curriculum – how can it be marked?” (Moon, 2001) The point Moon is making would seem a very valid one indeed, but how, why, and even if, reflection should be assessed would seem reliant on several key issues – what we mean by reflective practice; why we are including reflective practice; and finally how we are including reflective practice. Whether, reflection is taking place within specific modules, learning journals or work related exercises (see Moon, 2004), Moon further makes the point that if we value the approach, and therefore wish students to engage with it, then it is essential that outcomes are attached to it and that these are explicitly built within the assessment. Naturally, when defining outcomes it therefore becomes necessary to define what is seen as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ reflection, and for Moon such a process can be centred on teasing out the “language that describes reflection” (Moon, 2004, p. 13) Here, the reflective process can be linguistically defined, the use of a particular written or spoken style being indicative of a positive reflective attitude, which therefore requires the student to learn a reflective language which will show t hem to be effective reflective practitioners (see Appendix 1 for two models of indicative language and reflective assessment). Naturally, setting aside issues over the lack of a singular understanding of the term ‘reflection’ itself, an issue that must be addressed within the use of such a model, is it’s reliance on language and the ability of students to adopt a specific linguistic form. This represents a very traditional approach to what must surely be seen as an innovative learning model, and could be seen to benefit those who recognize the rules of the assessment strategy to a greater degree than those who may be more reflective but fail to adopt Further Reading: Key texts, references and resources Bulman, C. (2004), Assessing Reflection http://www. sig/citref Moon, J. (2001), PDP Working Paper 4: Reflection in Higher Education Learning, LTSN Generic Centre, http://www.heacademy /id72_Reflection_in_ Higher_Education_Learning Moon, J. (2004) Reflection and Employability, LTSN Generic Centre, http://www.heacademy /documents/ourwork/tla /employability/ id339_reflection_and_ employability.pdf Moon, J. (2005) Guide for Busy Academics No.4. Learning through reflection http://www.heacademy 9_guide_for_busy_academi cs_no4_moon Pee, B., Woodman, T., Fry, H., & Davenport, E. S. (2000) Appraising and assessing reflection in students’ writing on a structured worksheet Medical Education, Vol. 36
    • Stewart, S. & Richardson, B. (2000) Reflection and its place in the curriculum on an undergraduate course: should it be assessed? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 25 Sumsion, J., & Fleet, A. (1996) Reflection: Can we assess it? Should we asses it? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education; Vol. 21 Issue 2 such a rule-based method (Sumsion & Fleet, 1996). In addition, the use of such a coding system may act to undermine the personal reality of the reflection and subsequently raise concerns of artificiality within the system. (Stewart & Richardson, 2000, p. 10). Ultimately, within any system that attempts to standardize the personal in a summative form, the use of coding as a way of raising marks not only highlights such a potential artificiality, but may also serve to promote dishonesty within student revelation and analysis as the focus shifts from the experience itself to the marks that can be gained through it (Bulman, 2005). Questions concerning the validity of the assessment of reflection are unlikely to go away, but nor will the fact that it increasingly sits within an outcome base educational system and that its significance within that system is ever growing. Therefore, when deciding upon your own approach to reflective practice, there will be several key areas that will require consideration (see Moon, 2005) 1. Think about the purpose of the reflection, for instance; is it about the process or the product? 2. Think about how you intend to promote reflection; what format are you intending to use? 3. Think about how you are going to present it within the programme; how are you shaping your students expectations of the process? 4. Think about how you are going to explain the process to those students; what examples can you give that will clarify the model your are choosing? 5. Are you going to assess it and if so how; This will be guided by your answers to the previous questions. Additional Reflective Assessment Articles Fade, S. Learning & Assessing through reflection: a practical guide http://www. /resources/materials/docs /RoyalBromptonV3.pdf Hallett, R. (2002) Assessing reflection: Classroom based research and professional development practices evaluations /Full-papers/HallettFull.doc Minter, A. (2005) Teaching and Assessing: Reflection upon planning, delivery and evaluation British Journal of Midwifery, Vol. 13, No. 11
    • Appendix 1: Models for the assessment of reflective practice 1. Hatton and Smith’s criteria for assessing reflection (Pee et al, 2002, p. 578) Hatton and Smith define four types of student writing, three of which they characterize as types of reflection. They specify criteria for their recognition that can be summarized as follows: 1. ‘descriptive’ is not reflective, merely reporting events with no attempt to provide reasons. (I did x; he said y) 2. ‘descriptive reflection’ provides reasons (often based on personal judgement), although only in a reportive way. (I did x because y) 3. ‘dialogic reflection’ is a form of discourse with one’s self, mulling over reasons and exploring alternatives. (I wonder...? perhaps ...? maybe...?) 4. ‘critical reflection’ takes account of the socio-political context in which events take place and decisions are made (roles, relationships, responsibilities, gender, ethnicity, etc.). 2. Jenny Moon’s features of accounts that are indicative of different levels of reflection (Moon, J., 2001) 1.00: This account is descriptive and it contains little reflection. - The account describes what happened, sometimes mentioning past experiences, sometimes anticipating the future – but all in the context of an account of the event. - There are some references to the their emotional reactions, but they have not explored how the reactions relate to her behaviour. - Ideas are taken on without questioning them or considering them in depth. - The account is written only from their point of view. - External information is mentioned but its impact on behaviour is not subject to consideration. - Generally one point is made at a time and ideas are not linked.
    • 2.00: An account showing evidence of some reflection. - There is description of the event, but where there are external ideas or information, the material is subjected to consideration and deliberation. - The account shows some analysis. - There is recognition of the worth of exploring motives for behaviour - There is willingness to be critical of action. - Relevant and helpful detail is explored where it has value. - There is recognition of the overall effect of the event on self – in other words, there is some ‘standing back’ from the event. The account is written at one point in time. It does not, therefore, demonstrate the recognition that views can change with time and more reflection. In other words the account does not indicate a recognition that frames of reference affect the manner in which we reflect at a given time. 3.00: This account shows quite deep reflection, and it does incorporate a recognition that the frame of reference with which an event is viewed can change - Self questioning is evident (an ‘internal dialogue’ is set up at times) deliberating between different views of their own behaviour (different views of her own and others). - They take into account the views and motives of others and considers these against her own. - They recognise how prior experience, thoughts (own and other’s) interact with the production of her own behaviour. - There is clear evidence of standing back from an event. - She helps herself to learn from the experience by splitting off the reflective processes from the points she wants to learn.