Does reflective writing in the PDP improve science and

engineering students’ learning?

Write Now CETL Mini-Project Poster

Peter Chalk & Dafna Hardbattlep.chalk@londonmet.ac.uk

London Metropolitan UniversityLiverpool Hope CETLs Research Symposium 26 June 2007

Research Context • At LondonMet, the Personal Development

portfolio (PDP) is embedded in the curriculum with PDP related assessment at each level, in ‘core spine’ modules

• Is there evidence of– Reflective writing in their PDPs?– Planning for self-development?– Improved performance as a consequence?

• Or is there a problem?– If so, can we solve it?

Terry King, Development of Student Skills in Reflective Writing, ICED 2002

“In a culture of increasing emphasis on critical reflection by students, it is not surprising that the external examiners… have looked for evidence of this in student dissertations and other assessments. Towards the end of 2000 it became apparent that the incidence and quality of reflective writing by computing students across all programmes needed to be improved.”

Why Science Students?

Comments by Science staff at LondonMet in 2007

• “We certainly find that students need time to develop this ability… . They tend to produce very factual pieces of work and lack the ability to weigh up arguments… Workshops would certainly help.”

• “…weaker students struggle with the level of critical/analytical report writing that they should be achieving.”

• “Science students find it hard to write reflectively… PDP writing helps them develop these skills.”

Research methodology (Feb-Jul 07)

• Qualitative and quantitative data analysis • Data from 0506 and 0607 Spring semesters • Collect evidence from PDPs • Categorise writing according to Moon levels

1-4 and agree ratings (in progess)• Identify examples of high level reflective

writing & tasks that encouraged it• Interview students & analyse data against

performance (to complete summer 2007)

Rating Tool (quantitative)

Moon’s Categories: • Level 1 Descriptive writing

• Level 2 Descriptive reflection

• Level 3 Dialogic reflection

• Level 4 Critical reflection

Jenny Moon Reflection in Higher Education Learning, LTSN, 2001

Moon’s categories (qualitative)

• 1. “Descriptive writing: This is a description of events or literature reports. There is no discussion beyond description.

• 2. Descriptive reflection: … some evidence of deeper consideration in relatively descriptive language. There is no real evidence of the notion of alternative viewpoints in use.”

• 3. “Dialogic reflection: … a ‘stepping back’ from the events There is consideration of the qualities of judgements and of possible alternatives for explaining and hypothesising… analytical or integrative, linking factors and perspectives.

• 4. Critical reflection: … aware that the same actions and events may be seen in different contexts with different explanations associated with the contexts.”

Typical example A (how would you rate it?)

Typical example B (how would you rate it?)Typical example B(how would you rate it?)

Preliminary results – 0506 cohort

• 17 students, 3-5 extracts of text from each, total 52 extracts analysed

• Ratings independently agreed for 15 students (Rating Tool validated)

• Mostly unreflective, 83% rated 1 or 1.5

• Some evidence of reflection at level 2 / 2.5

• What task/ experience/ support leads to ‘better’ reflective writing?

Expected research outcomes

• Teaching and Learning tasks that promote reflective writing by science and engineering students (use Write Now mentors?)

• Guide to lecturers: how to categorise and assess levels of reflective writing (Moon tool?)

• Designing a reusable learning object incorporating these findings, similar to www.rlo-cetl.ac.uk

• Rating ‘answers’: example A=1, B=2.5