Greig A1, Rankin A1, Bradley A1
1University of British Columbia, Department of Physical Therapy, Vancouver, Canada
Background: Structured reflection writing is used in health professional education to facilitate the development of clinical reasoning skills. Learners commonly under-appreciate the value of reflection writing in the development of core clinical and professional skill acquisition. Published work demonstrates that "peer review" can improve learners´ written and critical thinking skills.
Purpose: Incorporating written peer review into an entry-to-practice physiotherapy program will provide significant and permanent improvements to the quality of the written clinical reflections and will enhance the learning experience for students. Clinical reflection is recognized as an important step in the development of clinical reasoning skills which in turn affects the development of core professional skills. Through exposure to other students' reflections and by using the rubric and exemplars to compare/contrast different quality work, students will develop their own set-point for what a meaningful reflection should be. The ability to provide constructive written feedback is a frequently applied clinical skill.
Methods: A peer review process was developed to facilitate engagement in written reflections: learners were taught the key elements of reflection writing, completed a reflection on their clinical practice experience, reviewed a peer´s reflection, provided constructive feedback to their peer, and received feedback (on their own reflection) from a peer. This process was followed across six clinical placement experiences over the length of an entry-to-practice physiotherapy program (two-years). Focus group feedback, pre / post comparisons and comparisons with a control group were conducted to evaluate the impact on the quality of, and appreciation for, clinical reflection writing.
Results: Qualitative data from focus groups indicate that the peer review process increased engagement in reflection writing and enhanced appreciation for the role of reflection in clinical practice. A blinded pre / post comparison and comparison with a control student cohort demonstrated improvements in the quality of the reflections in learners who participated in the peer review process. Learners were more aware of the elements of quality reflection writing and the repetition of the process over six clinical placements refined the learners´ skills in reflection writing.
Conclusion(s): The peer review process of clinical placement reflections increased learners´ appreciation for the value of reflection writing in clinical decision making, and its role in clinical skill development.
Implications: Peer review can be used as an approach to increase the engagement in, and appreciation of, clinical reflection writing. It also serves to facilitate the development of giving and receiving constructive feedback. Future work may look at long term effects of peer review on clinical reflection.
Keywords: Peer Review, Clinical Reflection, Written Feedback
Funding acknowledgements: Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund, University of British Columbia
Purpose: Incorporating written peer review into an entry-to-practice physiotherapy program will provide significant and permanent improvements to the quality of the written clinical reflections and will enhance the learning experience for students. Clinical reflection is recognized as an important step in the development of clinical reasoning skills which in turn affects the development of core professional skills. Through exposure to other students' reflections and by using the rubric and exemplars to compare/contrast different quality work, students will develop their own set-point for what a meaningful reflection should be. The ability to provide constructive written feedback is a frequently applied clinical skill.
Methods: A peer review process was developed to facilitate engagement in written reflections: learners were taught the key elements of reflection writing, completed a reflection on their clinical practice experience, reviewed a peer´s reflection, provided constructive feedback to their peer, and received feedback (on their own reflection) from a peer. This process was followed across six clinical placement experiences over the length of an entry-to-practice physiotherapy program (two-years). Focus group feedback, pre / post comparisons and comparisons with a control group were conducted to evaluate the impact on the quality of, and appreciation for, clinical reflection writing.
Results: Qualitative data from focus groups indicate that the peer review process increased engagement in reflection writing and enhanced appreciation for the role of reflection in clinical practice. A blinded pre / post comparison and comparison with a control student cohort demonstrated improvements in the quality of the reflections in learners who participated in the peer review process. Learners were more aware of the elements of quality reflection writing and the repetition of the process over six clinical placements refined the learners´ skills in reflection writing.
Conclusion(s): The peer review process of clinical placement reflections increased learners´ appreciation for the value of reflection writing in clinical decision making, and its role in clinical skill development.
Implications: Peer review can be used as an approach to increase the engagement in, and appreciation of, clinical reflection writing. It also serves to facilitate the development of giving and receiving constructive feedback. Future work may look at long term effects of peer review on clinical reflection.
Keywords: Peer Review, Clinical Reflection, Written Feedback
Funding acknowledgements: Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund, University of British Columbia
Topic: Education: clinical; Education; Education: continuing professional development
Ethics approval required: No
Institution: University of British Columbia
Ethics committee: UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board
Reason not required: This work explored an enhancement to an established educational approach. This project was not a research study but was development of an educational innovation. Ethics approval is not required for this type of innovation.
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
