No abstract

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. ReflectionMany courses cite goals related to promoting reflective thinking or developing the ability to reflect on practice. This is particularly true in professional degrees. Schön (1983) argued that expert practitioners in a profession were distinguished from novices by their ability to reflect on their practice when dealing with unusual or particularly complex cases. The logical corollary is that, to ensure adequate preparation for a professional career, programmes need to cultivate the ability to reflect on practice (Schön 1987).It is also arguable that all degrees should promote reflective thinking since it is necessary to make reflective judgements to deal with ill-defined problems. This is surely a generic capability that is needed by graduates in knowledge-based societies. The nature of reflectionWhat is perhaps surprising, in spite of the wide interest in reflection and the volumes written about it, is that the concept is ill defined. Formal definitions are not easy to find as has been observed by Atkins and Murphy (1993) and Sparks-Langer et al. (1990) among others. Many write about reflection with the apparent assumption that everyone knows what it is. However, the disparities in terminology, frames of reference, applications and usage make it clear that this assumption is not helpful.There is an element of confusion within the literature because the concept has become so widely and diversely used that it is now found within quite disparate contexts and based on divergent frames of reference. As a result, a number of quite discrete areas of literature

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study aimed to determine and compare Radiation Therapists' (RTs') and Radiation Oncology Medical Physicists' (ROMPs') perspectives about their profession and workplace, satisfaction with career progression opportunities, and leaving the current workplace. RTs and ROMPs who were currently or had previously worked in Australia were invited to complete an online survey. Univariate and multivariate methods were used for analysis. Participants were 342 RTs and 112 ROMPs with estimated response rates of 14% and 26% respectively. Both professions rated workload poorly and identified the need for improvement in: communication between professions' members, support for junior staff/new graduates, staff morale, on-site training and multidisciplinary communication. RTs, more than ROMPs, perceived their profession was recognised and respected, but RTs were less likely to be satisfied with career progression/advancement, job promotion prospects and opportunities to specialise. At least 20% of RTs and ROMPs were thinking about leaving their workplace and 13% of RTs and 8% of ROMPs were thinking about leaving their profession. Different factors contributed to workforce satisfaction and retention within each profession. Staff satisfaction and career progression are critical to retain RTs and ROMPs. Further research is required to explore strategies to address workplace dissatisfaction, recruitment and retention.

IntroductionThe 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.MethodsThis study used mixed methods to collect qualitative and quantitative data using an online survey from a larger workforce study of RTs and radiation oncology medical physicists. Participants practising in Australia completed questions about their research involvement. Chi‐square tests and logistic regression were used to analyse quantitative data and content analysis was used to explore qualitative data.ResultsTwo hundred and ninety‐six RTs answered the research questions. Forty‐six percent had been involved in research. Of these, 91% had been involved in departmental, 28% in national, 14% in international and 29% in informal or self‐directed research studies. Eleven RTs (8%) had received funding as a chief/principal investigator. Involvement in research was associated with a desire to make a career change. However, it also appeared to be associated with greater satisfaction with career progression and staying in the career. Respondents identified a range of potential research topics, benefits of participating in research and barriers which included lack of time, support and cost.ConclusionAlmost half of the RT participants identified that they were participating in research. Our data suggest that continued involvement in research, and opportunities to participate, improve RT job satisfaction. RTs' research activities are likely to be extended through provision of additional time and support.