Division of Geriatrics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California 94118, USA.
Med Educ. 2012 Aug;46(8):807-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04299.x.
Little is known about best practices for teaching and learning reflection. We hypothesised that reflective ability scores on written reflections would be higher in students using critical reflection guidelines, or receiving feedback on reflective skill in addition to reflection content, or both, compared with those in students who received only a definition of reflection or feedback on reflection content alone.
Using a 2 (guidelines) × 2 (feedback) × 2 (time) design, we randomly assigned half of our sample of 149 Year 3 medical students to receive critical reflection guidelines and the other half to receive only a definition of critical reflection. We then randomly divided both groups in half again so that one half of each group received feedback on both the content and reflective ability in their reflections, and the other received content feedback alone. The learners' performance was measured on the first and third written reflections of the academic year using a previously validated scoring rubric. We calculated descriptive statistics for the reflection scores and conducted a repeated-measures analysis of variance with two between-groups factors, guidelines and feedback, and one within-group factor, occasion, using the measure of reflective ability as the dependent variable.
We failed to find a significant interaction between guidelines and feedback (F = 0.51, d.f. = 1, 145, p = 0.48). However, the provision of critical reflection guidelines improved reflective ability compared with the provision of a definition of critical reflection only (F = 147.1, d.f. = 1, 145, p < 0.001). Feedback also improved reflective ability, but only when it covered reflective skill in addition to content (F = 6.5, d.f. = 1, 145, p = 0.012).
We found that the provision of critical reflection guidelines improved performance and that feedback on both content and reflective ability also improved performance. Our study demonstrates that teaching learners the characteristics of deeper, more effective reflection and helping them to acquire the skills they need to reflect well improves their reflective ability as measured by performance on reflective exercises.
关于教授和学习反思的最佳实践方法,我们知之甚少。我们假设,与仅接受反思定义或仅接受反思内容反馈的学生相比,使用批判性反思指南的学生或除了反思内容之外还接受反思技能反馈的学生,其书面反思中的反思能力得分会更高。
我们采用 2(指南)×2(反馈)×2(时间)设计,将 149 名三年级医学生的样本随机分配一半接受批判性反思指南,另一半仅接受批判性反思的定义。然后,我们再次将这两组随机分为两半,以便每组的一半收到对其反思内容和反思能力的反馈,另一半仅收到内容反馈。在本学年的前两次书面反思中,使用之前验证过的评分量表来衡量学习者的表现。我们对反思分数进行了描述性统计,并使用反映能力作为因变量,对具有两个组间因素(指南和反馈)和一个组内因素(场合)的重复测量方差进行了分析。
我们没有发现指南和反馈之间存在显著的相互作用(F = 0.51,d.f. = 1,145,p = 0.48)。然而,提供批判性反思指南比仅提供批判性反思的定义提高了反思能力(F = 147.1,d.f. = 1,145,p <0.001)。反馈也提高了反思能力,但仅当它涵盖了内容之外的反思技能时(F = 6.5,d.f. = 1,145,p = 0.012)。
我们发现提供批判性反思指南可以提高表现,而对内容和反思能力的反馈也可以提高表现。我们的研究表明,教授学习者更深入、更有效的反思特征,并帮助他们获得良好反思所需的技能,可以提高他们在反思练习中的反思能力。