Reflection: Education and Reflective Practice Essay

The aim of this assignment is to give a brooding account on conventioning show and the peer mensuratement ch exclusivelyenge as well as the development of a individualized action tendency. It would involve utilize The What? Model of structure Reflection (Driscoll 2007) to analyse the puzzle of using a group designed sagaciousness beam to assess my peers and the experience of being peer assessed. Additionally, experience of completing a group first appearance would be reflected upon. A personal action pattern which identifies areas for personal development and the designed judging tool is attached as adjunct 1 and 2 respectively.Reflection entails reviewing experience from send so that it whitethorn be described, analysed, evaluated and consequently utilise to inform and change future practice in a positive way (Bulman and Schutz 2013, p6). Reflection could be (Oelofsen 2012, p4) in real time (reflection in action) or retrospectively (reflection on action). severa l(prenominal) authors (Jay and Johnson 2002 Taylor 2006) have suggested the use of frameworks to guide students undertaking reflective writing. However, John (cited in Bulman and Schutz, 2013, p118) cautions that reflective frameworks are guides rather than a rigid prescriptive format. Jasper (2006) as well as warns that frameworks come with the authors perspective and values base and go bys reflectors in a specific direction. It is therefore imperative to be critical of the pattern of choice and adjust the framework to suit peerlesss purposes so that it can be used effectively.Numerous frameworks for facilitating reflection are utilised in nursing (Doel and Shardlow 2009, p42) such as Gibbs Reflective Cycle (1988) and Johns Model of Structured Reflection (1995). Following critical analysis, The What? Model of Structured Reflection (Driscoll 2007) consisting of three truthful questions What?, So what? and Now what?, each with torpedo questions was chosen. The rationale for th is choice is that this framework is comparatively simple (Howatson-Jones 2010), effective and actually apt for novice practitioners but can equally be used at different levels (Jasper 2003, p99). More everywhere, it can be used logically with every type of situation by using the cue questions which gives a deeper and meaty reflective surgical process hereby leading to the formulation of an action plan for the future. Furthermore, as opposed to Gibbs and Johns framework, it enables reflective activity to lead to action being taken rather than being proposed or tentative.The purpose of returning to this situation is to look on from the experience of using a devised perspicacity tool to assess my peers. Haven being divided into a group of four students based on our reading styles, each group was evaluate to design an assessment tool and carry out a presentation which is to be peer assessed. The group presentation touch presenting on one of the 3 future roles of a nurse educato r, setr or schoolmaster. create by mental act our assessment tool was very challenging as each share of the group brainstormed, shared views, and prioritised. Communication was done via emails, phone calls and meetings as concord by all members. Effective team working was evident among all members. The assessment tool was amended based on feedback received from the lecturer.On the presentation day, majority of the students including myself were anxious as there was a mistaking of the date of presentation so were not prepared. Although, this touch on the quality of our presentation as it was prepared under 20 minutes. However, students still proved that they could be innovative even under duress. The peer assessment process involved an individual assessment of each groups presentation using our assessment tool and calculating the average to give the final grade. During this process, I realized how difficult it was assessing others and being assessed without being biased. It was particularly difficult to tone the criteria as our assessment tool was not explicit making it inconceivable to justify the marks awarded. It had too numerous separate components with inappropriate system of weights which made it arduous and complicated in the averaging task. Although, the assessment tool appeared simple as it involved ticking boxes. However, it was difficult to decide which boxes to tick because students present majority of the criteria but at different levels and this led to being over marked. It would have been more realistic to award marks to each touchstone rather than ticking boxes.Hargreaves (2007) as well as Quinn and Hughes (2007, p270) propose that assessment tool should be both valid (assess what it claims to assess) and reliable (perform in a consistent and stable manner). It is of the opinion now following the assessment that our assessment tool cannot be construeed valid and reliable for the following reasons. Learning terminus was not part of the criteria so it was impossible to make a feeling about the quality of the students presentation and thus could not be penalized. Hinchliff (1999) suggests that learning outcomes should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timed (SMART). It should include an indication of the evidence ask to demonstrate that learning has been achieved (Dix and Hughes, 2004), but Welsh and Swann (2002) caution that too many may create unreasonable expectations. Moreover, the ambiguity of the tool and individuals subjectivity in terms of attitudes, beliefs and values (the halo effect) resulted in perceived bias which affected the reliability. Bias however, remains an issue to overcome and as such I felt the feedback received from my peers would not be accurate.Although the peer assessment process made us engage fully in the presentation and learn from the strengths and weaknesses of our peers, there is a need to develop the necessary skills and judgements to effectively manage peer a ssessments and this involves knowledge and experience (Oelofsen 2012, Somerville and Keeling, 2004). Furthermore, there is a need to be fully prepared and equipped, develop criteria that match the identified learning outcome, consider the issue of fairness particularly with disabled students and clearly communicate assessment criteria . The above reasons can be considered as areas for future development, an in profoundness analysis of this can be seen in the attached action plan (appendix 1). This process of reflection on action has proved successful as it brought about learning. Even though critics like Rolfe (2003) and Markham (2002) criticised reflective practice for overlook of definition and unproven benefit. Taylor (2010) however argues that it is nevertheless worth the effort to roleplay about deeper insights and changes in practice and education.In conclusion, this essay has demonstrated an arrangement of the peer assessment process by assessing the worth of our assessme nt tool on other students and the experience of being assessed by peers. Using a framework of choice, my experience was analysed and areas for further development identified and attached as appendix 1. Overall, this reflection has brought about deeper insights which identified strengths and weaknesses that would consequently enhance my professional development and result in changes in the future should the situation reverse again.