Ot educators assessing students' reflection assignments
- 1. Occupational Therapy Educators Assessing Students’ Reflection Assignments Margaret Finger OTD, OTR/L Assignment created for Creighton University Abstract Results – Literature Table Results Conclusion This paper describes the process of reviewing the literature in order to locate evidence based research to support or refute the existence of a reliable and valid assessment to assess students’ reflection assignments and skills. Educators’ role in facilitating active learners in academia was discussed. Different levels of knowledge were defined, compared and contrasted. In order for students to be able to transform what they learn in the class to new knowledge and apply it to real life situations, they need to possess the ability to critically analyze and critically reflect. Reflection is defined, and superficial and deep or critical reflection are compared and contrasted. Different theories of reflection are presented. The implications for healthcare professionals, such as occupational therapy, to utilize critical reflection in order to bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice are hypothesized. The process and the summary of findings of the literature review are outlined. Two assessments (a questionnaire and a four code assessment of reflection assignments) are introduced and explained. Conclusions are drawn and discussion is presented to support the hypothesis that occupational therapists, in order to face competently the challenges of today, must possess the ability to critically analyze and critically reflect. This is due to current healthcare trends, the need for evidence based practice, and to conduct research and influence healthcare policies. Methods Implications for Occupational Therapy References In order to answer this question, a computerized comprehensive literature search was conducted in the summer of 2014. Data bases that were included were: Google scholar, ERIC, CINAHL, PEDRO and PsycINFO. Search terms were identified as: students’ reflection assignments, assessment, and reliable and valid. Alternate search terms included: journals or texts, and evaluations or tools. When possible, truncation was used due to the small number of appropriate findings. Publications that were included were written in English and were published in peer reviewed journals. There were no limitations put on dates of publication. Papers that were included had to mention all three search terms and had to address the question of inquiry. Papers that were included had to contain the development of an assessment of students’ reflection assignments that underwent testing for validity and reliability. Papers were excluded if all three search terms were not present in the paper. Papers excluded were based on theory, descriptive or instructional papers on reflection. A total of four papers were included in the review process. These papers spanned from 1995 through 2008. All four of the papers contained the development of an assessment for students’ reflection papers and underwent testing for reliability and validity. • Kember, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., Webb, C., Wong, F., Wong, M., Yeung, E. (1999). Determining the Level of Reflective Thinking From Students’ Written Journals Using a Coding Scheme Based on the Work of Mezirow. • Kember, D., Leung, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., Webb, C., Wong, F., Wong, M., & Yeung, E. (2000). Development of a Questionnaire to Measure the Level of Reflective Thinking. • Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Wong, F. (2008). A Four-category Scheme for Coding and Assessing the Level of Reflection in Written Work • Wong, F., Kember, D., Chung, L., Yan, L. (1995). Assessing the Level of Student Reflection from Reflective Journals. In reviewing the four papers that answered the question of inquiry, there was a longitudinal progression of identifying codes based on theories proposed by Boud and Mezirow. Trials of these codes were conducted with healthcare students to successfully develop an assessment for students’ reflection assignments. The process began in 1995 with an assessment of good validity but not reliability. In 1999, another tool was developed that had similar results, showing good validity but questionable reliability. Then, in 2000, a questionnaire was developed that was both valid and reliable. Finally, in 2008, the development of a four code assessment tool was both valid and reliable. Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M., & Norman, M. (2010). How learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Boud D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page. Dewey J (1933). How we think. Chicago: Regnery. Mezirow, J (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Paterson, C., & Chapman, J. (2013). Enhancing skills of critical reflection to evidence learning in professional practice. Physical Therapy in Sport. 14, 133-138. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sommers, J. (2011). Reflection revisited: The class collage. Journal of Basic Writing, 30(1), 99-129. Stav, W., Hallenen, T., Lane, J. & Arbesman, M. (2012). Systematic review of occupational engagement and health outcomes among community-dwelling older adults. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(3). At the conclusion of the literature review, the question of inquiry was answered. There exists a questionnaire and a four code assessment of students’ reflection papers that both are valid and reliable. In order to use the four code assessment, it is important to be able to recognize the four levels of non-reflection and reflection. Two of the codes are non-reflection levels and the other two codes are reflection levels. The four codes are: habitual action, understanding, reflection and critical reflection. As occupational therapy educators, it is our responsibility to facilitate the progression of students from habitual action to critical reflection. In the process of encouraging the students to develop critical reflection, it is necessary to concentrate on reflection throughout the entire semester. A reflection assignment only at the end of the semester is not enough (Sommers, 2011). In this day and time, it is imperative that occupational therapists possess critical analysis and critical reflection skills in order to be aware of health care trends, understand the importance of using evidence based practice, and know the role of occupational therapy in research and health care policy making. Over the past thirty years, occupational therapists have become more involved in community based treatment. The paradigm has shifted from remediation to prevention. There is currently an emphasis being placed on occupational therapists to provide evidence based practice. In order to do this, it requires critical analysis and reflection of evidence based research. Not only does evidence based practice provide an element of professionalism to our profession, but an increasing amount of third party payers are demanding evidence to support what we are doing. Third party payers want to know that occupational therapy is providing the most beneficial and cost effective interventions with the least amount of adverse effects. It is important to know the evidence behind interventions in order to enable occupational therapists to answer the questions of their patients and family members. Healthcare policies are driven by healthcare research. Occupational therapy educators need to facilitate critical reflection in order to produce occupational therapy practitioners that are competent and ready for the real world challenges they will face. When students leave the academic environment, if they possess the skill of critical reflection, it will allow them to transform theory into practice. Critical reflection also enables them to find alternate solutions to problems, rather than responding with habitual action. Please do not copy without permission