The document discusses the challenges of assessing reflective work. It notes that reflection encourages independent thinking without a set curriculum, so assessing it can be difficult. While reflection is increasingly included in education, outcomes must be attached to it if its value is to be recognized. Some propose assessing the language used in reflections to determine the depth and quality, but this favors those who recognize assessment rules over those who may reflect deeply in other ways. Overall, valid assessment of reflection is complicated and there are no simple answers, but the practice will continue growing in education.

1. Reflection & Education
3: Assessment
“Assessment is a difficult issue when it concerns reflective
material. A fair question is that since reflection is an
encouragement for learners to follow the lines of their
own thinking, to work without a curriculum – how can it
be marked?” (Moon, 2001)
The point Moon is making would seem a very valid one
indeed, but how, why, and even if, reflection should be
assessed would seem reliant on several key issues – what
we mean by reflective practice; why we are including
reflective practice; and finally how we are including
reflective practice. Whether, reflection is taking place
within specific modules, learning journals or work related
exercises (see Moon, 2004), Moon further makes the
point that if we value the approach, and therefore wish
students to engage with it, then it is essential that
outcomes are attached to it and that these are explicitly
built within the assessment. Naturally, when defining
outcomes it therefore becomes necessary to define what
is seen as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ reflection, and for Moon such a
process can be centred on teasing out the “language that
describes reflection” (Moon, 2004, p. 13) Here, the
reflective process can be linguistically defined, the use of
a particular written or spoken style being indicative of a
positive reflective attitude, which therefore requires the
student to learn a reflective language which will show t
hem to be effective reflective practitioners (see Appendix
1 for two models of indicative language and reflective
assessment).
Naturally, setting aside issues over the lack of a singular
understanding of the term ‘reflection’ itself, an issue that
must be addressed within the use of such a model, is it’s
reliance on language and the ability of students to adopt
a specific linguistic form. This represents a very
traditional approach to what must surely be seen as an
innovative learning model, and could be seen to benefit
those who recognize the rules of the assessment strategy
to a greater degree than those who may be more
reflective but fail to adopt
Further Reading:
Key texts, references
and resources
Bulman, C. (2004),
Assessing Reflection
http://www.
health.heacademy.ac.uk/
sig/citref
Moon, J. (2001),
PDP Working Paper 4:
Reflection in Higher
Education Learning, LTSN
Generic Centre,
http://www.heacademy
.ac.uk/resources/detail
/id72_Reflection_in_
Higher_Education_Learning
Moon, J. (2004)
Reflection and
Employability, LTSN
Generic Centre,
http://www.heacademy
.ac.uk/assets/York
/documents/ourwork/tla
/employability/
id339_reflection_and_
employability.pdf
Moon, J. (2005)
Guide for Busy Academics
No.4. Learning through
reflection
http://www.heacademy
.ac.uk/resources/detail/id6
9_guide_for_busy_academi
cs_no4_moon
Pee, B., Woodman, T.,
Fry, H., & Davenport, E.
S. (2000)
Appraising and assessing
reflection in students’
writing
on a structured worksheet
Medical Education, Vol. 36

2. Stewart, S. & Richardson,
B.
(2000)
Reflection and its
place in the curriculum on
an undergraduate course:
should it be assessed?
Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol. 25
Sumsion, J., & Fleet, A.
(1996)
Reflection:
Can we assess it?
Should we asses it?
Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education; Vol. 21
Issue 2
such a rule-based method (Sumsion & Fleet, 1996).
In addition, the use of such a coding system may act
to undermine the personal reality of the reflection
and subsequently raise concerns of artificiality within
the system. (Stewart & Richardson, 2000, p. 10).
Ultimately, within any system that attempts to
standardize the personal in a summative form, the
use of coding as a way of raising marks not only
highlights such a potential artificiality, but may also
serve to promote dishonesty within student revelation
and analysis as the focus shifts from the experience
itself to the marks that can be gained through it
(Bulman, 2005).
Questions concerning the validity of the assessment
of reflection are unlikely to go away, but nor will the
fact that it increasingly sits within an outcome base
educational system and that its significance within
that system is ever growing. Therefore, when
deciding upon your own approach to reflective
practice, there will be several key areas that will
require consideration (see Moon, 2005)
1. Think about the purpose of the reflection, for
instance; is it about the process or the product?
2. Think about how you intend to promote
reflection; what format are you intending to
use?
3. Think about how you are going to present it
within the programme; how are you shaping
your students expectations of the process?
4. Think about how you are going to explain the
process to those students; what examples can
you give that will clarify the model your are
choosing?
5. Are you going to assess it and if so how; This
will be guided by your answers to the previous
questions.
Additional Reflective
Assessment Articles
Fade, S.
Learning & Assessing
through reflection: a
practical guide
http://www.
practicebasedlearning.org
/resources/materials/docs
/RoyalBromptonV3.pdf
Hallett, R. (2002)
Assessing reflection:
Classroom based research
and professional development
practices www.unisa.edu.au/
evaluations
/Full-papers/HallettFull.doc
Minter, A. (2005)
Teaching and Assessing:
Reflection upon planning,
delivery and evaluation
British Journal of Midwifery,
Vol. 13, No. 11

3. Appendix 1: Models for the assessment of reflective practice
1. Hatton and Smith’s criteria for assessing reflection (Pee et al, 2002, p. 578)
Hatton and Smith define four types of student writing, three of which they
characterize as types of reflection. They specify criteria for their recognition that can
be summarized as follows:
1. ‘descriptive’ is not reflective, merely reporting events with no attempt to provide
reasons. (I did x; he said y)
2. ‘descriptive reflection’ provides reasons (often based on personal judgement),
although only in a reportive way. (I did x because y)
3. ‘dialogic reflection’ is a form of discourse with one’s self, mulling over reasons
and exploring alternatives. (I wonder...? perhaps ...? maybe...?)
4. ‘critical reflection’ takes account of the socio-political context in which events
take place and decisions are made (roles, relationships, responsibilities, gender,
ethnicity, etc.).
2. Jenny Moon’s features of accounts that are indicative of different levels
of reflection (Moon, J., 2001)
1.00: This account is descriptive and it contains little reflection.
- The account describes what happened, sometimes mentioning past experiences,
sometimes anticipating the future
– but all in the context of an account of the event.
- There are some references to the their emotional reactions, but they have not
explored how the reactions relate to her behaviour.
- Ideas are taken on without questioning them or considering them in depth.
- The account is written only from their point of view.
- External information is mentioned but its impact on behaviour is not subject to
consideration.
- Generally one point is made at a time and ideas are not linked.

4. 2.00: An account showing evidence of some reflection.
- There is description of the event, but where there are external ideas or
information, the material is subjected to consideration and deliberation.
- The account shows some analysis.
- There is recognition of the worth of exploring motives for behaviour
- There is willingness to be critical of action.
- Relevant and helpful detail is explored where it has value.
- There is recognition of the overall effect of the event on self – in other words,
there is some ‘standing back’ from the event.
The account is written at one point in time. It does not, therefore, demonstrate
the recognition that views can change with time and more reflection. In other
words the account does not indicate a recognition that frames of reference affect
the manner in which we reflect at a given time.
3.00: This account shows quite deep reflection, and it does incorporate
a recognition that the frame of reference with which an event is viewed
can change
- Self questioning is evident (an ‘internal dialogue’ is set up at times) deliberating
between different views of their own behaviour (different views of her own and
others).
- They take into account the views and motives of others and considers these
against her own.
- They recognise how prior experience, thoughts (own and other’s) interact
with the production of her own behaviour.
- There is clear evidence of standing back from an event.
- She helps herself to learn from the experience by splitting off the reflective
processes from the points she wants to learn.