Table 3 Theories and models referred for assessment - vertical levels of reflection
From: A systematic scoping review of reflective writing in medical education
Author | Depth of reflection | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Non-reflectors (e.g. habitual reflection, thoughtful action, introspection) | Reflectors (e.g. content reflection, process reflection, content and process reflection) | Critical reflectors (e.g. Premise reflection) | Content of reflection/ criterion | |
Kember et al.'s Reflective Thinking Scale [102] | Habitual action, Understanding | Reflection | Critical reflection |  |
Hatton and Smith's 4 Levels of Reflective Writing [103] | Description | Descriptive reflection, Dialogic reflection | Critical reflection | Â |
Dewey's 5 Phases [2] | Â | Content and process reflection | Premise/ critical reflection | Â |
Moon's Map of Learning [104] | Noticing, Making sense | Making meaning, Working with meaning | Transformative learning |  |
Mezirow's Transformative Learning [7] | Habitual action, Thoughtful action, Understanding | Reflection | Critical reflection | Â |
Wald et al.'s REFLECT Rubric [105] | Habitual action Thoughtful action or introspection | Reflection | Critical reflection | Writing spectrum Presence/ sense of writer Description of conflict or disorienting dilemma Attending to emotions Analysis and meaning making |
Stein's Critical Reflection [106] | No evidence of reflection (Descriptive only, no suggestions for maintaining strengths and improving weaknesses) | Developing reflection (Strengths and weaknesses identified; incorporation of two of following: patient feedback, past experience, evidence for patient-centered interviewing) | Deep reflection | Skills Feelings Rationale Patient’s reactions Patient feedback Patient-centered interviewing |
Bain's 5Rs Reflective Framework [101] | Component 1: Reporting (Micro-reflection) i.e. Describing what happened | Component 3: Relating (Micro-reflection) i.e. Finding connections between incident and writer’s own experiences and understanding | Component 5: Reconstructing (Micro-reflection) i.e. Reframing or reconstruction of future practices and own understanding |  |
Component 2: Responding (Micro-reflection) i.e. Making observations, expressing feelings or asking questions | Component 4: Reasoning (Micro-reflection) i.e. Identifying factors underlying incident | Component 6: Representing (Macro-reflection) i.e. Framing of reflection into local, regional, national and global context | ||
Morrow's Critical Reflection [107] |  |  |  | Personal Interpersonal Contextual Critical/ Evaluation – limitations faced, social, ethical problems faced |
Plack et al.'s Method of Assessing Reflective Journal Writing [108] | No evidence of reflection | Evidence of reflection | Evidence of critical reflection i.e. exploration of existence of problem, where problems arises from, underlying assumptions; revisits experience to challenge assumptions and modification of biases |  |
Kims’s Critical Reflective Inquiry Model [85] | Descriptive Description of practice events, actions, thoughts and feelings | Reflective Analysis of situation, of intentions | Critical Critique of practice regarding conflicts, distortion and inconsistencies Engagement in emancipatory change process |  |
Makaram et al.'s GRE-9 [100] | What happened? What is special about this event? Feelings when it happened? What was the outcome for the concerned? Understanding of the event | Congruence of actions and beliefs New thoughts and feelings after reflection | Reference to old experience and others How this incident will affect future role |  |
Aukes et al.'s Groningen Reflection Ability Scale [109] |  |  |  | Self-reflection Empathetic reflection Reflective communication |
Wang and Liao's Analytic Reflective Writing Scoring Rubric for Healthcare Students and Providers [1] |  |  |  | Focus and contextualisation Ideas and elaboration Voices and points of view Critical thinking and representation Depth of reflection regarding personal growth Language and style |
Plack et al.'s Modified Cuppernull Bloom’s Taxonomy [98] | Level 1: Knowledge and comprehension Description of event | Level 2: Analysis Deconstruction of experience, examination of alternative explanations | Level 3: Synthesis and evaluation Conclusions Hypothesize different strategies for future Articulation of learning |  |
Rogers et al.'s Reflection Rubric [99] | Beginning i.e. Thoughts conveyed but no to minimal integration of personal thoughts into experience/ justification/ based on one or two perspectives with no to minimal evidence | Developing i.e. some integration of personal thoughts/ some justification/ two perspectives with some evidence | Distinguished i.e. strong integration of personal thoughts/ substantial justification/ more than two perspectives with substantial evidence | Presentation Perspective taking Connection Understanding-cognition Understanding-emotion |
Proficient i.e. Moderate integration of personal thoughts/ moderate justification/ two perspectives with moderate evidence | ||||
Bradley's Model for Evaluating Student Learning [110] | Descriptive | Analytical | Integrative Impact on global issues | Â |
Lee’s 3 Levels of Reflection [111] | Recall level (R1) Description | Rationalisation level (R2) Reasons and rationale Guiding principles | Reflectivity level (R3) Perspective finding |  |
van Manen's Tact of Teaching [97] | Technical rationality Practical action Description of event |  | Critical reflection Using personal and other’s experiences to systematically examine phenomenon Reflection on reflection Metacognitive processing |  |