Reflection for learning: teaching reflective practice at the beginning of university study
Open accessAbstract
Reflective practice is a key skill in many professions and is considered an essential attribute of healthcare practitioners. Healthcare students are often expected to develop reflection skills through their assignments, and this is frequently expected to occur with little explicit instruction, practice or guidance about how to reflect. Currently, there is limited guidance in the literature on how teachers can help students develop these reflective skills effectively. In this study, we describe a process for embedding reflective skills into a transition program for new healthcare students about to enter university. By allowing students to explore reflection through a method of self-discovery supported by peer discussion, we found that students were likely to recognise and value reflection as a learning tool (a concept we term “reflection for learning”). Additionally, these students were more likely to continue to practice reflection in their studies than students who had not participated in the training. In summary, this paper demonstrates that students are able to make meaningful deductions about reflective practice and their own learning through use of a basic framework in which to self-reflect, from the very start of their tertiary studies.
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?
Iterative reflective practices ground students in their own perspectives and provide individual time before collaborating with teammates, fostering deeper understanding and continuous improvement.
“Third, iterative reflective practices (64–67) ground students in their own perspectives and provide individual time before collaborating with teammates. This fosters a deeper understanding of complex concepts and promotes continuous improvement.”
From Global Health Trade Summit: an AI-enhanced simulation of international trade and global health for undergraduate public health education (2025) · cites this paper as [67]
Cites
Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x · Cited by 1,865 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Furthermore, self-assessment is considered more accurate if there is an appropriate delay between learning the skill and conducting the self-testing exercise (Dunning et al., 2004).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Addressing the use of generative AI in academic writing.
van Niekerk, J., Delport, P. M. J., & Sutherland, I. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100342 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Cahusac de Caux, B. K. C. D., Lam, C. K. C., Lau, R., Hoang, C. H., & Pretorius, L. (2017) · Reflective Practice · doi:10.1080/14623943.2017.1307725 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Pretorius, L., & Ford, A.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- ORCID
- Pretorius, Lynette
- Venue
- Monash University
- Publisher
- Monash University
- Published
- 2021
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 241-253
- OpenAlex
- W2547434295
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 25.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- Locations
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Monash University (cc-by)
- International journal on teaching and learning in higher education
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- reflective practice, health professions students, transition to college, peer discussion, self-discovery, student reflection, healthcare education
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