PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Reflective writing develops meta-cognition among students. Therefore, it is of interest to compare effectiveness of post lecture reflective writing to didactic lecture between individual and group reflective writing. Hence, we included 124 first-year students from AIIMS Bhopal, India and divided them in two groups of 62 students. Both groups took a pre-test using a reflection questionnaire. Students were taught reflective writing. Both groups attended physiology lectures on two different topics. First lecture on body fluids where Group A wrote reflections individually and Group B did so in sub-groups (B1 to B6). After another lecture on Pathophysiology of oedema, Group A wrote reflections in groups and Group B wrote individually (A1 to A6). Both groups took a test in the form of MCQ about reflective writing on lectures. After intervention both groups took a post-test using a reflection questionnaire. Mean and standard deviation of Pre-test is 3.86 ± 0.86 and Post-test is 7.58 ± 1.01, respectively. The Mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.05 ± 4.41 and in group is 27.45 ± 3.93, respectively with p-value < 0.05. Evaluation of students who wrote reflection in groups after second lecture the mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.22 ± 4.64 and in group is 27.03 ± 2.87 respectively with p-value < 0.05. The performance of students who wrote reflection in groups is not satisfactory as compared to students who wrote their reflection individually.
摘要：
反思性写作在学生中发展元认知。因此,将演讲后反思性写作的有效性与个人和小组反思性写作之间的说教性演讲进行比较是有意义的。因此，我们包括124名来自博帕尔的一年级学生，印度将他们分成两组，每组62名学生。两组都使用反思问卷进行了预测测试。学生被教导反思性写作。两组都参加了关于两个不同主题的生理学讲座。关于体液的第一次演讲，其中A组单独写反射，B组在子组（B1至B6）中这样做。在又一次关于水肿的病理生理学的讲座之后,A组以小组书写反射，B组单独书写（A1至A6）。两组都以MCQ的形式进行了关于课堂反思写作的测试。干预后，两组都使用反思问卷进行了后期测试。试验前的平均值和标准偏差分别为3.86±0.86和试验后的平均值和标准偏差分别为7.58±1.01。单独书写的反射的平均值和标准偏差为38.05±4.41，组中分别为27.45±3.93，p值<0.05。第二课后分组写反思的学生的评价，分别写反思的平均值和标准差分别为38.22±4.64和27.03±2.87，p值<0.05。与单独写反思的学生相比，小组写反思的学生的表现并不令人满意。
