Thoroughness of Self Reflections All six (6) elements of reflection included every week 4 One (1) element missed on one week 3 Two (2) elements missed over the course of the placement 2 Three (3) elements missed over the course of the placement 1 Four (4) or more elements missed over the course of the placement 0 Comments: Accuracy of Linking Self Reflections to Clinical Competencies and SMART Goals All four (4) elements accurately linked every week 4 One (1) element inaccurately linked on one week 3 Two (2) elements inaccurately linked over the course of the placement 2 Three (3) elements inaccurately linked over the course of the placement 1 Four (4) or more elements inaccurately linked over the course of the placement 0 Comments: Degree of Variety Included in Self Reflections over the Course of the Placement Excellent: extensive range of experiences reviewed for each of the four (4) sections 4 Good: most sections reflected unique experiences 3 Some: at least half of the sections reflected unique experiences 2 Limited: some sections varied while most were repetitive 1 None: reflections in all four (4) sections were repetitive week-to-week 0 Comments: Level of Analysis Demonstrated in Self Reflections over the Course of the Placement Robust Reflection: student clearly and consistently tied experiences to their functional importance and made astute recommendations to further learning, provided evidence of a 8 constructive change in perspective or approach 7 Good Reflection: good choice of experience examples, analysis of functional importance and opportunity to continue development improved over time to include some astute 6 learning 5 Good Understanding: good choice of experience examples, variable analysis of functional 4 importance and opportunity to continue development 3 Limited Understanding: inclusion of some good experience examples, weak analysis of 2 functional importance and opportunity to continue development 1 Poor Understanding: weak choice of experiences, no evidence of attempting to reach an 0 understanding, no significant change in quality of analysis over time Comments:
Thoroughness of Self Reflections All six (6) elements of reflection included every week 4 One (1) element missed on one week 3 Two (2) elements missed over the course of the placement 2 Three (3) elements missed over the course of the placement 1 Four (4) or more elements missed over the course of the placement 0 Comments: Accuracy of Linking Self Reflections to Clinical Competencies and SMART Goals All four (4) elements accurately linked every week 4 One (1) element inaccurately linked on one week 3 Two (2) elements inaccurately linked over the course of the placement 2 Three (3) elements inaccurately linked over the course of the placement 1 Four (4) or more elements inaccurately linked over the course of the placement 0 Comments: Degree of Variety Included in Self Reflections over the Course of the Placement Excellent: extensive range of experiences reviewed for each of the four (4) sections 4 Good: most sections reflected unique experiences 3 Some: at least half of the sections reflected unique experiences 2 Limited: some sections varied while most were repetitive 1 None: reflections in all four (4) sections were repetitive week-to-week 0 Comments: Level of Analysis Demonstrated in Self Reflections over the Course of the Placement Robust Reflection: student clearly and consistently tied experiences to their functional importance and made astute recommendations to further learning, provided evidence of a constructive change in perspective or approach 8 7 Good Reflection: good choice of experience examples, analysis of functional importance and opportunity to continue development improved over time to include some astute learning 6 5 Good Understanding: good choice of experience examples, variable analysis of functional importance and opportunity to continue development 4 3 Limited Understanding: inclusion of some good experience examples, weak analysis of functional importance and opportunity to continue development 2 1 Poor Understanding: weak choice of experiences, no evidence of attempting to reach an understanding, no significant change in quality of analysis over time 0 Comments:
Evaluation-of-Structured-Reflection-Logs-3.docx