Jan McKay

Development of a Questionnaire to Measure the Level of Reflective Thinking

Many courses aim to promote reflective thinking or reflection upon practice, but there is a scarcity of readily usable instruments to determine whether students engage in reflective thinking and, if so, to what extent. This paper reports the development and testing of such an instrument. To ensure validity, the constructs measured were derived from the extensive literature on reflective thinking, particularly the writing of Mezirow. A combination of the literature review and initial testing led to the development of a four-scale instrument measuring four constructs; habitual action, understanding, reflection and critical reflection. The final version of the instrument was tested with a sample of 303 students from eight classes of a health science faculty. The reliability of the scales was established by acceptable Cronbach alpha values. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit to the proposed four-factor structure. Comparison of mean scores between the eight classes showed predicted significant differences on each of the four scales between undergraduate and postgraduate students.

A four‐category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work

Where courses have as an aim the promotion of reflective practice, it will enhance the achievement of the goal if the level of reflective thinking is assessed. To do this in a satisfactory way requires a reliable protocol for assessing the level of reflection in written work. This article presents a protocol that can be used to guide the allocation of work to four categories, namely: habitual action/non‐reflection, understanding, reflection, and critical reflection. Intermediate categories can also be used. Detailed descriptors of each category to guide the process are provided. The protocol was tested by four assessors independently using it to grade a set of written work, and very good agreement was obtained.

Radiation therapists' and radiation oncology medical physicists' perceptions of work and the working environment in Australia: a qualitative study.

&NA; Workforce recruitment and retention are issues in radiation oncology. The working environment is likely to have an impact on retention; however, there is a lack of research in this area. The objectives of this study were to: investigate radiation therapists’ (RTs) and radiation oncology medical physicists’ (ROMPs) perceptions of work and the working environment; and determine the factors that influence the ability of RTs and ROMPs to undertake their work and how these factors affect recruitment and retention. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted and thematic analysis was used. Twenty‐eight RTs and 21 ROMPs participated. The overarching themes were delivering care, support in work, working conditions and lifestyle. The overarching themes were mostly consistent across both groups; however, the exemplars reflected the different roles and perspectives of RTs and ROMPs. Participants described the importance they placed on treating patients and improving their lives. Working conditions were sometimes difficult with participants reporting pressure at work, large workloads and longer hours and overtime. Insufficient staff numbers impacted on the effectiveness of staff, the working environment and intentions to stay. Staff satisfaction is likely to be improved if changes are made to the working environment. We make recommendations that may assist departments to support RTs and ROMPs.

An assessment of radiation oncology medical physicists’ perspectives on undertaking research

As part of a study of the radiation oncology workforce, radiation oncology medical physicists (ROMPs) who had worked in Australia were surveyed regarding their attitudes to participating in research. Responses from 88 ROMPs were available for analysis, representing a broad mix of employment situations and research experience. Greater than 70% of ROMPs described their involvement in research as “liking it” or “loving it”, with associated identified benefits including skills development, job satisfaction and career progression. Over half of respondents agreed that involvement in research inspired them to stay in their profession. However, lack of time, support and motivation were all identified as barriers to participation in research. Areas of research interest were identified. This study highlights the importance of a research culture for job satisfaction and staff retention.

Radiation therapists' perspectives on participating in research.

The objectives of this research were to: (1) determine the extent of Australian radiation therapists (RTs) research participation; (2) evaluate the impact of research involvement on career perceptions (3) explore which research topics require investigation and (4) identify benefits and barriers to research participation.

Quality assurance systems and educational development: part 2 – the need for complementary staff development

The second of two related articles examines the quality enhancement initiatives that led to the development of a substantially different degree proposal, after the rejection of the first proposal at course validation. The case study continues with a review of the initiatives that allowed the development of a course team that felt ownership of the second proposal, and the staff development initiatives that provided the substance on which the implementation phase was able to progress. The case study illustrates the limitations and powers of quality assurance and shows that it is most effective when operating in concert with educational development processes.