Thinking in practice

In this episode, we step away from the traditional "tutor-led" curriculum to explore the messy, rewarding reality of Co-Creation. Drawing on the experience of the Preparation for Professional Practice module, I reflect on what happens when we invite students to move from being "learners" to "partners."We discuss the transition from the autumn term's reflection on scope of practice to the spring term's co-designed sessions, and how this constructivist approach helps final-year BSc and MSc physiotherapy students prepare for the uncertainties of qualification.Key Themes:The Ladder of Participation: Moving from tutor control to student partnership.The "I Don't Know What I Don't Know" Dilemma: How to scaffold co-creation for students who feel like "non-experts."Inclusion vs. Voluntary Engagement: Lessons learned from a 20% engagement rate and how we restructured for the whole cohort.The Educator as Learner: How dialogue with students enriches the lecturer's own pedagogical practice.References & Resources:Bovill, C. (2019). Co-creation in learning and teaching: the case for a whole-class approach in higher education. Higher Education, 79(6), 1023–1037. [Open Access]Bovill, C. (2011). A framework for outcomes of student–staff co-creation in higher education. * Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co-creators of teaching and learning: the state of the art.Mentioned Concepts: Joost van Wittgen & BetaStream (Innovative Curriculum Design); Katherine Bovill's "Ladder of Student Participation."Acknowledgements:Special thanks to colleagues Debbie, Adrian, and Jay for their support and inspiration in shaping this module, and to the previous cohorts of students whose creativity and feedback make this evolution possible.

Episode Summary:In this episode, we move beyond the traditional view of feedback as a "document" and explore it as a developmental dialogue. Inspired by the work of Phil Dawson and David Boud, we dive into the concept of Evaluative Judgement—the capability for a student to judge the quality of their own work and the work of others.As physiotherapy educators, how do we ensure our students can recognize "good" practice on day one? We discuss the shift from justifying grades to shaping future clinical decisions, the role of peer-assisted learning, and the urgent need for evaluative judgement in the era of Generative AI.Key Themes:Evaluative Judgement: Defining the capability beyond binary "pass/fail" safety.Feedback as Effect: Why feedback only matters if it changes the next performance.The AI Challenge: Moving from producing answers to interrogating AI outputs.Clinical Accountability: Why the responsibility for quality remains uniquely human.References & Further Reading:Gladovic et al. Developing Evaluative Judgement in Higher Education. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2025.2559635Dawson, P et al. What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877Bearman, M., et al. Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Music Credits:Theme music "Curiosity Bloom" was co-created with Gemini AI (Google, 2026).

A reflective piece questioning our reliance on written feedback, exploring its limitations, the student experience, and how feedback might feel more meaningful when it becomes a dialogue rather than a document.