Factors confounding the assessment of reflection: a critical review

dc.creator	Koole Sebastiaan
dc.creator	Dornan Tim
dc.creator	Aper Leen
dc.creator	Scherpbier Albert
dc.creator	Valcke Martin
dc.creator	Cohen-Schotanus Janke
dc.creator	Derese Anselme
dc.date	2011-12-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned	2015-07-20T22:10:42Z
dc.date.available	2015-07-20T22:10:42Z
dc.identifier	10.1186/1472-6920-11-104
dc.identifier	1472-6920
dc.identifier	https://doaj.org/article/e366e748364e474ea4315dc0841c6d2f
dc.identifier.uri	http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/13849
dc.description	<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>To address the problem of <it>inconsistency</it>, 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 <it>defining standards</it>, 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 <it>complicate assessment </it>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 the subjective content of reflection and where possible to consider objective information about the triggering situation to verify described reflections. Finally, <it>internal and external </it><it>contextual factors </it>such as motivation, instruction, character of assessment (formative or summative) and the ability of individual learning environments to stimulate reflection should be considered.</p>
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	BioMed Central
dc.relation	http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/11/104
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/1472-6920
dc.rights	CC BY
dc.source	BMC Medical Education, Vol 11, Iss 1, p 104 (2011)
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	DOAJ:Medicine (General)
dc.subject	DOAJ:Health Sciences
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	DOAJ:Medicine (General)
dc.subject	DOAJ:Health Sciences
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Medicine (General)
dc.subject	R5-920
dc.subject	Medicine
dc.subject	R
dc.subject	Special aspects of education
dc.subject	LC8-6691
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.title	Factors confounding the assessment of reflection: a critical review
dc.type	article