Structured Critical Reflection Paper #3: Oppression, Power & Diversity in My Social Work Practice
DEAL: A 3-STEP MODEL FOR REFLECTION*
Write a reflection paper in accordance with APA, 5th ed. (absolutely no more than 5 pages). Don’t begin a
reflection activity by asking “What did I learn?” The purpose of reflection is to generate learning—not simply
a display of what was learned. Reflection is not the same as description although description is a good first
step in reflection. A brief paragraph to get the reader acquainted with your focus and the context is
helpful. Please use sub-headings for your paper.
Step 1: DESCRIBE: (in fair detail, the who, what, where and when as objectively as possible)…the
experience, the activity, the reading, etc. Think about a class discussion, lecture, academic content, and
focus on what stood out for you as a learning experience connected to oppression, power, and diversity. Be
sure to cite sources. Begin your reflection with “In preparation for this reflection I….”
Step 2: EXAMINE: Staying focused on the description and in accordance with the course learning objectives
as well as past, current, or potential life experience (e.g., personal, service-learning, practicum,
employment) examine a specific concept, theory, or issue related to oppression, power, and diversity as
related to your social work practice. EXAMINE is a closer focus for the purpose of analysis. The goal is to
examine and integrate. Again, cite sources.
Step 3: ARTICULATE LEARNING: Answer all of the 4-part structure for written articulating learning”
What did I learn?
How did I learn it?
Why does it matter?
What will I do in the future, in light of it?
Critical thinking is expected through out the reflection. You must establish relevance, accuracy, precision,
and clarity in order to build depth, breadth, logic, and significance.
Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2006). The miniature guide to critical thinking. Santa Rosa, CA:
The Foundation for
Critical Thinking. (See www.criticalthinking.org)
*Ash, S., Clayton, P., & Moses, M. (2006). Excerpts from teaching and learning through
critical reflection: An instructor’s guide. Raleigh, NC: Author.
Intellectual
Standards* for
Critical Thinking
Clarity
Description
Questions
Clearly stated ideas with detail in the
descriptions that serve to clarify
statements.
Are my ideas clearly stated
and are my examples of the
topic clear to the reader? Did
I provide examples? Can I
elaborate?
Did I support my claim with
evidence? How do I know this
to be truthful? How can I
validate my claim? Did I use
too much anecdotal
experience to support my
claim?
Are my statements connected
to the topic? How is what I
discussed of concern to the
overall issue?
Have I covered the complexity
of the issue? Are there other
themes that need to be
explored to do the issue
justice?
Does the introduction match
my conclusions? Did I put
forth and follow a line of
thought that makes
sense? Are my conclusions a
reflection of the complexity
of the issue discussed?
What would another
perspective include? Is there
another way to interpret
this? Did I research
alternative perspectives? Can
I turn my discussion upside
down for a different vantage
point?
Accuracy
Statements or claims that are
supported with evidence (citations)
and are factually correct.
Relevance
Statements that are key to the
primary thesis and connect to a
central point.
Depth
The discussion and conclusions
reflect the complexity of the issue.
Logic
Reasoning that makes sense and
conclusions that are in keeping with
statements made throughout the
discussion.
Breadth
The discussion reflects multiple
viewpoints and possibilities.
*see www.criticalthinking.org
S501: Grading Rubric Structured Critical Reflection #2
You must self-evaluate your paper in accordance with this grading rubric. The completed rubric must
accompany your paper. Evaluate each section, circling the designated box in accordance with your selfevaluation. IS* stands for—Intellectual Standards for Critical Thinking (see page 3).
Section
evaluated
Describe
A
B
C
D—F
Description with
clarity, accuracy, &
relevance using
objectivity and
coherence in relating
the experience of
reading the texts.
Identification of
relevant issues
presented with clarity
& accuracy. Questions
explored & discussed
with, depth, breadth,
and logic. All claims
are supported with
evidence.
All aspects of the 4part structure are fully
addressed and clear
evidence of learning is
articulated with IS*
fully evidenced.
Description is clear,
accurate &
demonstrates
objectivity in relating
the experience of
reading the texts.
Some detail with
clarity and
objectivity, but
lacks consistency
throughout
section.
Significant lack of
detail, objectivity,
and evidence of
disjointed
presentation of
section.
Identification of a issue
and explored with
clarity. Some depth &
breadth in the
discussion. Claims are
supported.
Some
identification of
an issue,
thoughts, feelings
& beliefs are not
clearly examined,
with at least 2 IS*.
Issue thoughts,
feelings & beliefs are
not clearly examined
with little evidence
to support claims or
little to no
utilization of IS*.
All aspects of the 4-part
structure are addressed
and some evidence of
learning is articulated
with IS*.
Aspects of the 4-part
structure are unclear
and little evidence of
learning is
articulated with no
IS*.
Use of APA
style &
format
Grammar, APA style
and format are used
correctly throughout
the paper.
Only minor problems
with grammar & APA
style and format.
Most aspects of
the 4-part
structure are
addressed and
some evidence of
learning is
articulated, but
inconsistent IS*.
Most of the paper
uses correct
grammar & APA
style and format.
General
quality of
writing
Paper is very well
written, organized in
accordance with the
assignment, no errors
in grammar, spelling,
and punctuation.
Paragraphs and
sentences are well
developed and clear.
Paper is well written,
very few errors in
grammar, spelling, and
punctuation. Paragraphs
and sentences are
developed.
Examine
Articulate
Learning
Paper is generally
well written and
organized with
some problems
with grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation. Some
lack of clarity.
Many problems with
grammar and/or APA
style. e.g., no page
numbers for direct
quotes.
Paper is not very
well written. Many
problems with
grammar, spelling,
and punctuation