Three-level ordinal model of written reflection: descriptive, analytic, and integrative¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 1 study (1 causal), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 3 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article operationalizes reflection quality as a three-level ordinal scale modeled on Bradley's (1995) rubric for professional thinking. "Levels of reflection were operationalized as descriptive, analytical, and integrative": descriptive writing delineates activities, analytic writing assesses effects on the project or partner, and integrative writing assesses impact on issues larger than the project, such as the student's education, career, or global issues. Each paragraph is coded by its highest level of thinking shown.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Two coders working to consensus and a coding rubric are needed to classify paragraphs reliably, as the article's method describes.

Constraints¶

• The authors state the ordinal relationship is assumed, not proven: "We assumed that the relationship of descriptive, analytic, and integrative was in some sense ordinal."

Target Learners¶

• graduate students in professional communication programs doing service learning

Target Learning Objectives¶

• higher-order critical thinking about service experiences
• integration of theory with practice

Claims¶

• Guided Reflection Yields More Higher Order Paragraphs Than Free [+M]
• Dialogic Vs Expressive Reflection Mixed Results [+M]
• Public Vs Private Reflection Mixed [+M]
• Course sections given guided reflection assignments wrote roughly twice as much reflection as sections given free assignments [+W]

Related Theories¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Sturgill, A., & Motley, P. (2014). Methods of Reflection about Service Learning: Guided vs. Free, Dialogic vs. Expressive, and Public vs. Private. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 2(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.1.81. doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.2.1.81