REVIEW Open Access Factors confounding the assessment of reflection: a critical review
Author(s)
Sebastiaan KooleTim Dornan
Leen Aper
Albert Scherpbier
Martin Valcke
Janke Cohen-schotanus
Anselme Derese
Contributor(s)
The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.271.8185ftp://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/67/ad/BMC_Med_Educ_2011_Dec_28_11_104.tar.gz
Abstract
Background: Reflection on experience is an increasingly critical part of professional development and lifelong learning. There is, however, continuing uncertainty about how best to put principle into practice, particularly as regards assessment. This article explores those uncertainties in order to find practical ways of assessing reflection. Discussion: We critically review four problems: 1. Inconsistent definitions of reflection; 2. Lack of standards to determine (in)adequate reflection; 3. Factors that complicate assessment; 4. Internal and external contextual factors affecting the assessment of reflection. Summary: To address the problem of inconsistency, we identified processes that were common to a number of widely quoted theories and synthesised a model, which yielded six indicators that could be used in assessment instruments. We arrived at the conclusion that, until further progress has been made in defining standards, assessment must depend on developing and communicating local consensus between stakeholders (students, practitioners, teachers, supervisors, curriculum developers) about what is expected in exercises and formal tests. Major factors that complicate assessment are the subjective nature of reflection’s content and the dependency on descriptions by persons being assessed about their reflection process, without any objective means of verification. To counter these validity threats, we suggest that assessment should focus on generic process skills rather than theDate
2013-02-14Type
textIdentifier
oai:CiteSeerX.psu:10.1.1.271.8185http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.271.8185