Reflection on the end result of any project or test often comes quite naturally to students. We look at what's been produced and quickly make a judgment, and often this can be quite negative. While it's always good to look at what you have done in relation to your goals, another very significant form of reflection is that of process reflection. When you reflect on process, you consider the ways in which you proceeded from your goal to your product, and you weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the decisions you made along the way.
In research essay writing, you can complete a product reflection based on the final essay submitted for marking. You might consider how your message was conveyed, whether the structure and flow of the writing was engaging, whether you adequately supported your points, etc. But when you complete a process reflection (which much of the time will occur as you are completing the project), you might consider how you organized your time, whether you found all possible sources of information, whether your source evaluation was sufficient, how you sought and incorporated feedback, etc.
If you are able to able to reflect on process all the while that you are completing a project, and with each new realization change course and continually readjust to effectively reach your goals... that's so Meta! Below is some guidance on various ways of reflecting on process and product.
Taken directly from Peter Pappas' "Taxonomy of Reflection" with modification:
Assume an individual has just completed a task. What types of questions might they use to reflect on the experience?
Remembering: What did I do?
What my brain is doing: Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from short- or long-term memory.
Understanding: What was important about what I did? Did I meet my goals?
What my brain is doing: Constructing meaning from oral, written, or graphic messages.
Applying: When did I do this before? Where could I use this again?
What my brain is doing: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing. Extending the procedure to a new setting.
Analyzing: Do I see any patterns or relationships in what I did?
What my brain is doing: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose.
Evaluating: How well did I do? What worked? What do I need to improve?
What my brain is doing: Making judgments based on criteria and standards.
Creating: What should I do next? What’s my plan / design?
What my brain is doing: Combining or reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure.
Often times we need a point of reference to recognize the quality of our own work. Using an exemplar, which is usually a strong piece of work submitted by a previous student, we can consider how well our project compares to a reference point. The exemplar acts as an anchor, because both the teacher and the IB confirmed its quality against the required objectives.
Take a look at the following exemplars to help you reflect on your final product for assessed work:
Biology Internal Assessment (previous syllabus)
History (from class of 2017) Internal Assessment Criteria
Criterion A: Identification and evaluation of sources (6 marks)
Criterion B: Investigation (15 marks)
Criterion C: Reflection (4 marks)
Sciences (Physics, Biology, Chemistry) Internal Assessment Criteria
Personal engagement
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages with the exploration and makes it their own. Personal engagement may be recognized in different attributes and skills. These could include addressing personal interests or showing evidence of independent thinking, creativity or initiative in the designing, implementation or presentation of the investigation.
Exploration
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student establishes the scientific context for the work, states a clear and focused research question and uses concepts and techniques appropriate to the Diploma Programme level. Where appropriate, this criterion also assesses awareness of safety, environmental, and ethical considerations.
* This indicator should only be applied when appropriate to the investigation. See exemplars in TSM.
Analysis
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence that the student has selected, recorded, processed andinterpreted the data in ways that are relevant to the research question and can support a conclusion.
Evaluation
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student’s report provides evidence of evaluation of the investigation and the results with regard to the research question and the accepted scientific context.
*See exemplars in TSM for clarification.
Communication
This criterion assesses whether the investigation is presented and reported in a way that supports effective communication of the focus, process and outcomes.
*For example, incorrect/missing labelling of graphs, tables, images; use of units, decimal places. For issues of referencing and citations refer to the “Academic honesty” section.
Mathematics SL Internal Assessment Criteria
Criterion A: Communication
This criterion assesses the organization and coherence of the exploration. A well-organized exploration includes an introduction, has a rationale (which includes explaining why this topic was chosen), describes the aim of the exploration and has a conclusion. A coherent exploration is logically developed and easy to follow.
Graphs, tables and diagrams should accompany the work in the appropriate place and not be attached as appendices to the document.
Criterion B: Mathematical presentation
This criterion assesses to what extent the student is able to:
use appropriate mathematical language (notation, symbols, terminology)
define key terms, where required
use multiple forms of mathematical representation, such as formulae, diagrams, tables, charts, graphs and models, where appropriate.
Students are expected to use mathematical language when communicating mathematical ideas, reasoning and findings.
Students are encouraged to choose and use appropriate ICT tools such as graphic display calculators, screenshots, graphing, spreadsheets, databases, drawing and word-processing software, as appropriate, to enhance mathematical communication.
Criterion C: Personal engagement
This criterion assesses the extent to which the student engages with the exploration and makes it their own. Personal engagement may be recognized in different attributes and skills. These include thinking independently and/or creatively, addressing personal interest and presenting mathematical ideas in their own way.
Criterion D: Reflection
This criterion assesses how the student reviews, analyses and evaluates the exploration. Although reflection may be seen in the conclusion to the exploration, it may also be found throughout the exploration.
Criterion E: Use of mathematics
This criterion assesses to what extent students use mathematics in the exploration.
Students are expected to produce work that is commensurate with the level of the course. The mathematics explored should either be part of the syllabus, or at a similar level or beyond. It should not be completely based on mathematics listed in the prior learning. If the level of mathematics is not commensurate with the level of the course, a maximum of two marks can be awarded for this criterion.
The mathematics can be regarded as correct even if there are occasional minor errors as long as they do not detract from the flow of the mathematics or lead to an unreasonable outcome.
Extended Essay External Assessment Criteria
A: research question
(Objectives 1 and 2)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the purpose of the essay is specified. In many subjects, the aim of the essay will normally be expressed as a question and, therefore, this criterion is called the “research question”. However, certain disciplines may permit or encourage different ways of formulating the research task.
B: introduction
(Objectives 1 and 5)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the introduction makes clear how the research question relates to existing knowledge on the topic and explains how the topic chosen is significant and worthy of investigation.
C: investigation
(Objectives 1 and 3)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the investigation is planned and an appropriate range of sources has been consulted, or data has been gathered, that is relevant to the research question. Where the research question does not lend itself to a systematic investigation in the subject in which the essay is registered, the maximum level that can be awarded for this criterion is 2.
D: knowledge and understanding of the topic studied
(Objectives 3 and 7)
Where the research question does not lend itself to a systematic investigation in the subject in which the essay is registered, the maximum level that can be awarded for this criterion is 2. “Academic context”, as used in this guide, can be defined as the current state of the field of study under investigation. However, this is to be understood in relation to what can reasonably be expected of a pre-university student. For example, to obtain a level 4, it would be sufficient to relate the investigation to the principal lines of inquiry in the relevant field; detailed, comprehensive knowledge is not required.
E: reasoned argument
(Objectives 1 and 4)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the essay uses the material collected to present ideas in a logical and coherent manner, and develops a reasoned argument in relation to the research question. Where the research question does not lend itself to a systematic investigation in the subject in which the essay is registered, the maximum level that can be awarded for this criterion is 2.
F: application of analytical and evaluative skills appropriate to the subject
(Objective 7)
G: use of language appropriate to the subject
(Objective 6)
H: conclusion
(Objectives 1, 4 and 5)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the essay incorporates a conclusion that is relevant to the research question and is consistent with the evidence presented in the essay.
I: formal presentation
(Objective 5)
This criterion assesses the extent to which the layout, organization, appearance and formal elements of the essay consistently follow a standard format. The formal elements are: title page, table of contents, page numbers, illustrative material, quotations, documentation (including references, citations and bibliography) and appendices (if used).
J: abstract
(Objective 5)
The requirements for the abstract are for it to state clearly the research question that was investigated, how the investigation was undertaken and the conclusion(s) of the essay.
K: holistic judgment
(Objective 1)
The purpose of this criterion is to assess the qualities that distinguish an essay from the average, such as intellectual initiative, depth of understanding and insight. While these qualities will be clearly present in the best work, less successful essays may also show some evidence of them and should be rewarded under this criterion.
Pappas, Peter. "A Taxonomy of Reflection: Critical Thinking For Students, Teachers, and Principals." Copy / Paste by Peter Pappas. N.p., 4 Jan. 2010. Web. 26 May 2015. <http://www.peterpappas.com/2010/01/taxonomy-reflection-critical-thinking-students-teachers-principals.html>.