Peer-Reviewed Reflective Writing by Phase II Medical Students: A Mixed-Method Study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Reflective writing is a critical educational tool in medical training, promoting self-awareness, critical thinking, and professional growth. Peer review adds a collaborative dimension to reflective practices, enhancing depth and clarity through constructive feedback. However, challenges such as limited guidance, time constraints, and language barriers may hinder its effectiveness. This study evaluated the impact of peer-reviewed reflective writing on second-year medical students at Government Thoothukudi Medical College, India. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted with 30 second-year medical students enrolled in a Community Medicine block posting. Training sessions introduced students to Gibbs' Reflective Cycle and peer review principles using a standardized rubric. Students wrote initial reflections, participated in peer review, and revised their submissions based on feedback. Quantitative data from pre- and post-intervention surveys and rubric-based assessments of reflective writings were analyzed for improvements. Focus group discussions (FGDs) provided qualitative insights into students' experiences. RESULTS: Thirty students participated in the study. Quantitative analysis showed significant improvements in perceived value (3.2 ± 0.9 to 4.5 ± 0.7, p < 0.001) and confidence in reflective writing (2.8 ± 1.0 to 4.3 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). Reflective writing quality improved in clarity (3.1 ± 0.8 to 4.6 ± 0.5), depth (2.9 ± 1.0 to 4.4 ± 0.6), and adherence to Gibbs' Cycle (3.0 ± 0.7 to 4.7 ± 0.4; p < 0.001). FGDs revealed increased reflective depth, enhanced peer collaboration, and challenges such as language barriers and time constraints. CONCLUSION: Peer-reviewed reflective writing significantly enhances reflective practices, fostering critical thinking and professional growth. Addressing challenges, such as language barriers and variability in feedback quality, can further optimize outcomes. Integrating structured peer review into medical curricula can prepare students for reflective, collaborative clinical practice.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Peer assessment, when implemented with clear guidelines and adequate training, serves as a valuable complement to instructor-led evaluations, providing diverse perspectives on performance and promoting active engagement in the learning process.
“When implemented with clear guidelines and adequate training, it serves as a valuable complement to instructor-led evaluations, providing diverse perspectives on performance while promoting active engagement in the learning process [86,87].”
From Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 189 (2026) · cites this paper as [86]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 11 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [6]Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development New Jersey: Pearson Education 8 2025 Kolb DA 2014 https://www.realityworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/experientiallearninginfographic-8-2014-final.pdf
- [11]Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice 8 2025 2010 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/framework-for-action-on-interprofessional-education-collaborative-practice 21174039
- [14]Peer review in medical education: the benefits for learners Med Educ Online Baker V Loughren EA 1759825 25 2020
- [15]Scoping review on reflective writing in medical education BMC Med Educ Nguyen QD Fernandez N Karsenti T Charlin B 198 23 2023
- Authors
- Annasekaran, A., Rajasekar, V, Murugan P, R., & Kalaivani, V
- Affiliations
- Government Medical College Thoothukudi (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Annasekaran, Abiselvi
- Venue
- Cureus
- Published
- 2025-08-21
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e90679-e90679
- ISSN
- 2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12450057
- OpenAlex
- W4413381724
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 3.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Cureus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Reflective Practices in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
- Keywords
- reflective writing, peer review, peer feedback, medical students, Gibbs' reflective cycle, reflective practice, critical thinking, professional development, language barriers, medical 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
