RW versus CLC grades
المؤلف:
Pauline Cho & Catherine Tang
المصدر:
Enhancing Teaching and Learning through Assessment
الجزء والصفحة:
P361-C30
2025-08-06
477
RW versus CLC grades
We did not find any statistically significant relationship between RW and CLC scores though there appeared to be a trend for CLC scores to increase with RW scores. The reason why we did not find significant relationship may be due to the fact that RW were marked by one teacher only (PC) while CLC scores were average grades from a few supervisors, and grades given by clinical supervisors tended to cluster together.
It may be argued that students who did well in CLC tended to be more reflective and hence did better in RW. Or it may be that doing well in their RW helped the students to do better in CLC. Whichever was the case, the responses from the students confirmed the usefulness of RW in facilitating communication and sharing among peers and with supervisors, encouraging students to think reflectively and critically. It also encouraged self-assessment, motivated independent learning and helped students to develop skills in clinical reasoning and problem-solving - all are sure signs of deep learning and important learning outcomes of CLC. Clinic supervisors had also noted the significant increase in activities related to peer and supervisor consultations compared to the years when RW was not used at all.
In clinical sessions, students may be able to correctly perform procedures by rote but may fail to understand the rationale behind them (Ladyshewsky, 1995). If they are then assessed based on observed performance only, there is the danger of assumed competency. Time constraints in busy clinical sessions are likely to limit quality discussion and feedback, hence restricting students' potential to learn, and achievement of the goals of clinical learning. Ladyshewsky (1995) suggested that observation alone does not allow the supervisor to determine how much the students know the underlying theoretical knowledge and clinical reasoning skill, and hence it should not be used alone. The incorporation of RW as a component of CLC assessment was, from students' responses and my own observations of the effort students put in and the RW they wrote, very successful in facilitating clinical learning and reflective thinking. For most of the students, RW provided a novel approach to learning which was only non-threatening, but increased communication, encouraged self-assessment and reflection, allowed freedom for self-expression, and was actually enjoyable.
However, writing does not come spontaneously to everybody. For students who cannot express themselves well in writing, RW can heighten anxiety (Stockhausen & Kawashima, 2002; Walker, 1985). To be able to write reflectively and introspectively requires a bit of self-confidence and time to grasp the key issues (Brown & Knight, 1994; Holly, 1984), and not every student will be able to achieve this quickly, or indeed, at all. Evidence of reflection is the main issue to look for in RW as critical reflection, whether or not the students wrote well, is really what teachers want their students to do to enhance learning and awareness of self and others. Not all students will embrace RW (Beynon & Forchuk., 1998; Buehl, 1996), and some may consider it as an unnecessary workload. Students do need to spend time and effort to reflect, interact with peers and teachers, and seek information/evidence from books and journal articles (Beynon & Forchuk., 1998).
RW can also be taxing on the teacher's time (Walker, 1985), though some educators did not find it so (Ferrario, 1999). It all depends on how RW is used and implemented by the teacher. Initially, before students fully understand what they are required to do, more frequent feedback on students' attempts at RW (which obviously the teacher has to read carefully first) is required (Ballantyne & Packer, 1995; Fenwick, 2001). However, most educators who have attempted RW thought this extra effort and time worthwhile (Walker, 1985). Placek and Smyth (1995) reported that it was difficult to teach students to reflect. In their study, 19 students (pre-service teachers) were required to write about reflective teaching in physical education. The result of their study showed that students showed a low level of reflectivity which did not improve significantly over time - but this may be, according to the authors, due to inappropriate learning activities employed and the conservative viewpoint of students.
Self-evidently, only the students themselves can reflect on their own experiences and learn from this process (Kottkamp, 1990). The teacher can only facilitate and guide but will only have access to students' thoughts and feelings through what the students themselves choose to reveal. RW is essentially student-centred and basically the students have the control.
The teacher should also realize that s/he cannot depend on RW alone to assess students' understanding. Some students may be unable to articulate themselves properly in writing and some may feel uncomfortable with the personal element of RW - but that does not mean that they are incapable of doing it or that their understanding of the process is limited or inadequate. Some students may also prefer to think and/or write along a different line from what the teacher expected (Callahan, 2000). So, it is important for the teacher to be receptive to different kinds of thinking and writing preferences.
In their review paper on RW, Boud and Walker (1998) discussed various problems with RW and how to minimize or avoid them. Teachers preparing to use RW would benefit from reading this article. Here, only some of the problems are mentioned. While allowing the students freedom to write whatever they want is desirable, there is also a potential problem that students may include inappropriate disclosures in their RW that may be disturbing to the teacher or include issues that go beyond the expertise of the teacher.
Some teachers may have problems marking and grading the RW submitted by their students in view of the openness and personal nature of RW, and educators and scholars have yet to come up with a set of widely-accepted assessment procedures for RW. A few educators - Kember et al. (1999), Wong et al. (1995) have made this attempt, and with the increasing popularity of RW, it is hoped that there will be more research into RW before we enter the next decade.
RW is therefore not meant to, nor should it, be the one and only method for clinical assessment. At best, it should be viewed as a potentially useful exercise to facilitate successful learning in clinical training. Indeed, current trends in clinical supervision and assessment are moving away from a one-method clinical evaluation to multi-method assessment models.
الاكثر قراءة في Teaching Strategies
اخر الاخبار
اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة
