A critical evaluation of the usefulness of a coding scheme to categorise levels of reflective thinking
Access status:
Open Access
Type
ArticleAbstract
The use of reflective learning journals to encourage higher order learning outcomes is a growing area in higher education research and practice. However, without a unified and clear definition of reflection, identifying and assessing reflection is problematic for educators. In an ...
See moreThe use of reflective learning journals to encourage higher order learning outcomes is a growing area in higher education research and practice. However, without a unified and clear definition of reflection, identifying and assessing reflection is problematic for educators. In an attempt to address this issue Kember et al. (1999) devised a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow (1991), to identify and assess levels of reflective thinking in students’ written journals. We evaluated the usefulness of this coding scheme in a business education context. Findings revealed that the scheme was useful in identifying categories of reflective thinking. Initial inter-coder agreement ranged from 50-79%. On average, 65% of the journal content was coded as non-reflection and 35% as reflection. A further outcome of the research was to refine the coding scheme and to provide suggestions for its application in teaching practice.
See less
See moreThe use of reflective learning journals to encourage higher order learning outcomes is a growing area in higher education research and practice. However, without a unified and clear definition of reflection, identifying and assessing reflection is problematic for educators. In an attempt to address this issue Kember et al. (1999) devised a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow (1991), to identify and assess levels of reflective thinking in students’ written journals. We evaluated the usefulness of this coding scheme in a business education context. Findings revealed that the scheme was useful in identifying categories of reflective thinking. Initial inter-coder agreement ranged from 50-79%. On average, 65% of the journal content was coded as non-reflection and 35% as reflection. A further outcome of the research was to refine the coding scheme and to provide suggestions for its application in teaching practice.
See less
Date
2011-01-01Publisher
Taylor & Francis: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher EducationCitation
Bell A, Kelton J, McDonagh N, Mladenovic R and Morrison K (2011). A critical evaluation of the usefulness of a coding scheme to categorise levels of reflective thinking, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36(7): 797-815Share