Look at the following extracts and see which you think is the strongest. Both have been written for reflective academic assignments. Look for references to wider reading or theory, then identify discussions of the students’ own perspective and experiences. How well do the writers link the two?

Do they show a clear line of reasoning? Is a conclusion or solution reached?

Extract One

At the moment, I am struggling to get my work done on time. After classes, I come back to the house, full of good intentions, switch on the laptop and call up the files I will need to work on. Normally I have to check some references so I go onto the web. I find myself logging onto YouTube and looking at a few other sites to see what friends have been doing, and then suddenly it is 10 o’clock at night and I have done absolutely nothing. I feel bad about it. I wonder how other people manage to be so focussed? There are some good websites on time management, and somebody was telling me about the “Pomodoro technique.” That is my first action to explore.

Extract Two

During term one I found myself inwardly questioning the reliability of scientific journals, as I came across conflicting results and contradictory data in our weekly research sessions. I was surprised at how other members of the group appeared to automatically trust peer-reviewed journals and sometimes felt that information was accepted as long as there was a reference attached.

As I questioned the credibility of these articles, I read into what I now know is referred to as publication bias. For example, Dawes (2005) argues that, although reputable journals adopt a robust peer review process, articles still get published with significant flaws:

"Journals have to publish to survive and they want to publish articles that deal with topical important issues of the day. Sometimes this imperative overrides the critical review process." (Dawes, 2005, p6)

Furthermore, Brooks (1997) highlights the fact that statistical significance increases the likelihood of a researcher's work being published, which places great pressure on researchers (Brooks 1997, p46). If statistical significance increases the chance of a researcher's work being published, might not he or she be tempted to alter the data?

I didn't want to appear cynical to the rest of the group and kept these concerns to myself, which on reflection I should have volunteered for discussion. Instead I felt that in order to construct an accurate care plan at the end of each scenario, I had to adopt a more critical approach in selecting the most appropriate journal texts, to ensure my research was evidence-based and transferable to practice. After these realisations, I found it more helpful to employ the use of meta-analyses and systematic reviews for assessing research. In particular I found the Cochrane Library a very useful electronic information source.