Reflection on Pathophysiology Assignment
The aim of the pathophysiology assignment was to write a critical review of literature on the phases of repair of a chosen anatomical structure and link this with sufficient veterinary rehabilitation techniques. Having an excellent understanding of phases of repair is crucial in prescribing a rehabilitation plan. As my expertise was richer in the equine field, my initial intention was to choose a canine structure to enrich my lacking knowledge. However, as pathophysiology was a completely new topic for me and, although I was excited to learn more about it, I was not certain about level 7 expectations at Writtle. Similarly as Martin and Marsh (2003) suggested, vulnerability caused by my fear of failure made me stick to more familiar topic. I decided to choose an equine superficial digital flexor tendon, that has been previously well researched. I was aware that this particular topic would be very popular among other students. On the other hand, the assignment’s aim was to learn about phases of repair and rehabilitation rather than originality. A damage of the superficial digital flexor represents up to 93% of lameness in the horse (Thorpe et al., 2010), thus I was likely to come across it in the future. I also appreciated the freedom to choose a topic of interest. Writing on a topic that interests the author makes assignment a considerably easier and more enjoyable experience (Ségol, 2014; Köller et al., 2001). As Martin and Marsh (2003) further argued, the fear of failure can be beneficial as it drives the student to achieve well even in a challenging task. Moreover, my motivation of becoming a successful veterinary physiotherapist helped me to stay persistent (Augustyniak et al., 2016).
Although I was satisfied with my work in the end, I did not expect such positive feedback. The only critical point in the feedback I have received highlighted my referencing style, on which I had to seek further clarification from the marker. I feel like my work still needs further improvements as I was not happy with the amount of critical writing as opposed to the marker. However, I understand that this can be perceived differently by the marker as well as feedback can be perceived differently by the student (Hyland, 2013). Despite receiving several helpful in-text comments and the feedback not being vague, which is a common issue identified by students (Weaver, 2006), I would appreciate a slightly more detailed feedback on my next work.
Comentarios