ArticleMedical science educator2021
Recognizing Reflection: Computer-Assisted Analysis of First Year Medical Students' Reflective Writing.
Article in Medical science educator, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Gender Perspectives in Medical Education: Latent Semantic Analysis of Israeli First-Year Medical Students' Reflections.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Participation-based clinical clerkships contribute to increased medical student confidence in community emergency care: a cohort study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReflective writing is used throughout medical education to help students navigate their transformation into medical professionals. Assessment of reflective writing, however, is challenging; each available methodology of assessment has distinct advantages and disadvantages. We tested if combining two independent assessment mechanisms-a faculty-designed rubric and Academic Writing Analytics (AWA), an automated technique-could be used together to form a more robust form of evaluation.
methodsWe obtained reflective essays written by first year medical students as part of a clinical skills course. Faculty scored essays using a rubric designed to evaluate Integration, Depth, and Writing. The same essays were subjected to AWA analysis, which counted the number of reflective phrases indicative of Context, Challenge, or Change.
resultsFaculty scored the essays uniformly high, indicating that most students met the standard for reflection as described by the rubric. AWA identified over 1400 instances of reflective behavior within the essays, and there was significant variability in how often different types of reflective phrases were used by individual students.
conclusionsWhile data from faculty assessment or AWA alone is sufficient to evaluate reflective essays, combining these methods offer a richer and more valuable understanding of the student's reflection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.