Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching

As well as my colleague Amy Palmer’s reflections on group work, I also recently had the opportunity to help facilitate three group discussions with students from across the University, but with a focus on their experience of reflective journals and AI as part of the AI/Inclusive Assessment (AI/IA) sessions run by our BILT Student Fellows Pratham Gupta and Gaurav Saxena. 

Here are three of the main headlines which stood out across all three of the faculty sessions.

#1: Most students do not have much experience of reflective journals, but they can see the (potential) value in them

For many students across the sessions, unlike the formats of group project or coursework, the initial question which was typically asked was ‘what is a reflective journal?’ and the follow up question was often ‘so, how would that form part of an assessment?’.

Having outlined some of the features of a reflective journal, namely that it is assessing the nature of the reflections and the level of critical evaluation, rather than a ‘practical task’ in itself, many students saw the value in developing skills and competencies which would benefit them in an enduring way beyond their studies.

For instance, there was a feeling that in many industry roles, evaluation and self-reflection form essential approaches for job progression and consolidating successful working practices.

Students in more vocational courses (e.g. medicine, dentistry) were more aware of the reflective journal approaches. One of the really knotted issues which our discussions tried to untangle, was that when many students discussed this form of assessment, there was an unease about whether it would allow them to demonstrate their content knowledge and skills proficiency. If the popular refrain that education should ‘measure what it values, rather than value what it measures’, then these sessions illustrated competing notions of what should be valued, and pointed to students’ broader questions about the validity, rigour and utility of their degrees in conjunction with AI.

#2: Most students felt that reflective journals could potentially be susceptible to AI misuse, but the personal dimension of this means that they personally would not use AI for them

From the three sessions, there was a consensus that unless it was a formal examination-style assessment, some students on the courses would use AI. An unregulated, laissez-faire approach to AI-use was regarded as being potentially more divisive.

‘Because it is so personal and specific to you means that AI wouldn’t appreciate the nuance or context’ was one of the sentiments which was expressed in a session.

Across the three sessions, students emphasised that their perspective on reflective journals as an assessment format was highly contingent on whether the assessment was formative or summative, and whether it was graded or seen as a pass/fail component.

A number of the participants felt that this form of assessment was an excellent opportunity to write in a personal, reflective manner, without feeling constrained to formulate their views in formal academic expressions.

#3: Most students felt that AI use in ideation stages could increase the inclusivity of assessments, but some recognised potential inequities within the design

Using AI as a thinking-partner or for prompting reflection was felt to be a legitimate and effective use of AI to complete an assessment.

There were some thoughtful discussions as to the potential consequences of this in how this may affect individuals. On the one hand, some students cited the ready availability of AI as a thinking -partner, particularly where students require flexibility and on-demand engagement.

Some students cited concerns that this approach may diminish the interpersonal emphases and whether there should be greater facilitation of opportunities to practise and develop these skills of coaching, prompting and acting as a critical friend.

Another point which was identified across the sessions was the value that AI holds for those who have English as an Additional Language and the ways in which this can enhance their understanding. Although not exclusive to reflective journals as a feature, there was a view put forward that using AI linked to this assessment type would be a way which was easier to ‘regulate yourself’.

Conclusion

Introducing any new form of assessment is a significant undertaking and represents a commitment to recognising particular modes of learning and expressions of understanding.

Again, there are some practical implications that can be taken away from students’ views in these three sessions: 

1. When considering introducing ‘reflective journals’ as a new assessment approach in your unit or programme, establish students as partners from the start to fully explore the key elements for your design (BILT has an excellent guide on this).
2. Communication will be key. Explaining the value and making clear the range of benefits to this approach will be essential, particularly if this mode of assessment is different from what students have previously experienced or from their expectations.
3. Linked to point 1 – develop a full understanding of the ways in which the heterogeneity of students may approach this form of assessment with and without AI-use and plan the systems and structures which are necessary to support everyone equitably.