Enhancing Learning in Clinical Placements: Reflective Practice, Self-Assessment, Rubrics and Scaffolding
Abstract
Professional preparatory health programmes generally involve clinical placements with a focus on integration of theory into real life practice. Reflective writing is often included in the assessment requirements for clinical placement courses. However enabling students to engage in deeper levels of reflective writing in action, on action and for action requires careful scaffolding and assessment task design within university clinical placement handbooks. The purpose of this case study was to explore iterative refinement of assessment exercises within clinical placement handbook activities. Specifically, the study examined students’ responses to counselling experiences in authentic pharmacy practice, with comparative analysis undertaken for the various versions of the assessment task. Results showed that provision of iteratively developed guidelines, provided to three different groups of students, to support students in the assessment task, increased the marks achieved for individual components of the assessment. The results provide insight into how the design of these types of assessment exercises can be improved.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Systematic reflection tools can improve understanding between the instructor and students, provide a common consent about how service-learning performance is to be judged, and make assessment more transparent and away from personal prejudices.
“Indeed, systematic reflection tools can improve understanding between the instructor and students [37], providing a common consent about how service-learning performance is to be judged [38], making assessment more transparent and away from personal prejudices [37].”
From Beyond the Classroom: Integrating the ORID Model for In-Depth Reflection and Assessment in Service-Learning (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
Well-developed rubrics can reduce complexity and enhance the objectivity of assessment.
“As well-developed rubrics can reduce complexity and enhance the objectivity of assessment [17,38]”
From Beyond the Classroom: Integrating the ORID Model for In-Depth Reflection and Assessment in Service-Learning (2024) · cites this paper as [38]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kayan Fadlelmula, F., & Qadhi, S. M. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14090987 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stupans, I., March, G., & Owen, S. M.
- Affiliations
- University of New England (AU)
- University of South Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Stupans, Ieva
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-08
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 507-519
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W2125613841
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 6.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- clinical practicum, reflective practice, reflective writing, self-assessment, rubrics, scaffolding, assessment task design, pharmacy education, counseling skills, evaluation guidelines
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review