Fostering reflective capacity with interactive reflective writing in medical education: Using formal analytic frameworks to guide formative feedback to students' reflective writing

摘要

Dear Sir As learner (GWA) and educator (HSW) engaging in interactive reflective writing (IRW) for fostering reflective capacity (RC), we read Song & Stewart's "Reflective writing (RW) in medical education" (2012) with interest. We concur with teaching reflection (with IRW) as a "clinically relevant skill" for "medical and humanistic effectiveness". We however note negative references to student perceptions of RW and to rubrics applied to "reflectiveness of student writing" which "would likely confer a significant burden of time and energy on faculty". In this regard, we express concern with their omitting salient developments within RW curricula potentially contributing to "buy-in" for such pedagogy (learners/faculty). These include user-friendly formal analytic frameworks (Wald et al, 2010, Reis et al, 2010, Wald et al, 2012) for feedback consistency/ effectiveness, i.e. guiding faculty in crafting quality individualized written feedback to RW (hence "IRW") fostering RC, "priming" participants with student/faculty IRW manuals, and training facilitators for effective small group collaborative feedback to narratives - all geared toward promoting a more in-depth reflective process. Feedback from interprofessional faculty development workshops I (HSW) have conducted on formative feedback to RW using a "cognitive schema" of such frameworks as well as from learners on fonnative feedback to RW has been positive. Quality formative feedback to learners' RW can guide "thinking about thinking" rather than the authors' concern regarding "to try to manage and prescribe the way students think".