NCO201 TMA01 Reflection Sample: Learning Plan & Insights Singapore

For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.

This extract shows how a first tutor-marked reflection for NCO201 can be structured. It answers the task set out on our NCO201 TMA01 question page and pairs with the guidance in how to write the NCO201 TMA01 reflection. The learner, goal, scores and log entries below are entirely hypothetical and labelled illustrative. Use them to see the shape of a strong answer, then build your own from your real PCT01 evidence.

Illustrative scenario

The imaginary learner set a ten-week goal: to swim 400 m freestyle without stopping, starting from comfortable shallow-water paddling. Weekly subgoals rose from 50 m to 100 m, 200 m, 300 m and finally 400 m. Two self-assessments from PCT01 informed the plan. The first was a metacognition inventory based on Schraw and Dennison (1994), which covers knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. The second was a mindset questionnaire covering attitudes towards intelligence, challenge, criticism and mistakes, following the fixed and growth mindset ideas in Dweck (2006).

Learning Plan Summary (illustrative)

Marker’s note: the table should be short and consistent with what you write later. If the table says “largely achieved”, Q1B must justify that wording with evidence.

Question 1A: How strengths supported the goal

The learner’s strongest metacognitive area was planning. In the inventory, planning items such as setting specific goals before starting and organising time to meet them scored highest (illustrative). Schraw and Dennison (1994) place planning within regulation of cognition, which is the set of activities that lets a learner control learning. In practice, this meant splitting the 400 m target into weekly distances and booking three pool sessions a week in the calendar. By week four the learner could complete 200 m with rests every 50 m, which matched the plan. Without the weekly targets, the learner admits, the early sessions would probably have become unstructured laps with no clear measure of progress.

The strongest mindset area was attitude towards effort. The learner’s answers suggested a growth orientation, meaning ability was seen as something developed through practice (Dweck, 2006). This mattered in week three, when breathing on both sides left the learner out of breath after only 75 m. Instead of reading this as a sign of poor aptitude, the learner recorded it as a breathing-rhythm problem and added a drill with a kickboard. The two strengths worked together: planning supplied the structure, and the effort mindset kept the plan alive when a session went badly.

Question 1B: How effective the strategy was

The targeted weakness was debugging, one of the regulation components in the inventory. The strategy was a weekly filmed length checked against a four-point checklist: head position, kick from the hips, arm entry and breathing rhythm. It was effective in some respects and limited in others.

Where it worked. The film revealed that the head lifted on every breath, which dragged the hips down. Correcting this over two sessions lowered the time for 100 m from about 3:10 to 2:40 (illustrative figures). The checklist also gave the learner a repeatable way to decide what to fix first.

Where it fell short. The learner only filmed once a week, so a fault could continue for six sessions before being noticed. Filming also showed what happened but not why. A friend who swims regularly gave one useful correction, yet feedback was occasional rather than planned. The learner therefore rates the strategy as moderately effective. Rather than claiming full success, the learner identifies a clear improvement: film twice a week and ask for feedback at fixed points.

Marks are usually earned here by giving a balanced evaluation with at least one concrete example for what worked and one for what did not, then linking the rating in the table to that evidence.

Question 2: Three insights about how I learn

The three insights below are linked to three competencies: Planning, Monitoring and Social-relational learning. Each paragraph names the insight, gives a specific example, connects it to the competency, explains how it helps and says why it matters.

Insight 1 (Planning): I learn best when a large goal is turned into visible weekly steps

Looking back at the log, the weeks in which I wrote down a distance target before entering the pool were the weeks in which I completed all three sessions. In the two weeks when I skipped the Sunday review, I swam fewer laps and could not say what I had improved. This links to the Planning competency because planning is more than choosing a goal. It involves deciding in advance what to do, when, and how success will be judged. Zimmerman (2002) describes forethought, including goal setting and strategic planning, as the phase that shapes later effort. The insight matters because it changes how I will approach future modules: for each major assessment I will set milestones that I can tick off, rather than relying on a deadline alone. It is significant because it shows that my motivation is steadier when progress is visible.

Insight 2 (Monitoring): I notice problems late unless I build in checks

My weekly film showed the head-lift fault that I had not felt in the water. I had believed that tiredness caused my slowing, yet the film suggested a technique problem. This connects to the Monitoring competency, which concerns checking understanding and performance while learning rather than only at the end. Flavell (1979) described metacognitive experiences, such as the feeling that something is not working, as important signals during learning. My signal was weak, so I needed an external check to make it clear. The insight helps because I can now schedule monitoring points, for example a short self-quiz halfway through each study week, instead of hoping I will notice confusion. It matters because late detection cost me nearly two weeks of practice.

Insight 3 (Social-relational learning): Short, specific feedback from others speeds up my learning

In week six a friend watched two lengths and told me one thing: my right arm crossed the centre line. Fixing that single point improved my stroke more than three sessions of general practice. This reflects Social-relational learning, which values learning with and from other people, including asking for feedback and acting on it. I used to see asking for help as a sign that I had not tried hard enough. The log shows the opposite, since the most efficient week of my plan came after I invited feedback. It helps me because I can now request narrow, usable comments, such as “what is one thing to change?”, instead of waiting for broad opinions. It is significant because many future tasks, including group work, will depend on exchanging feedback.

How the marks are earned in this extract

• The Learning Plan Summary matches the narrative in Q1 and does not contradict it.
• Each strength is tied to a specific episode from the log, not a general statement.
• The evaluation of the strategy includes both strengths and limits.
• Each Q2 paragraph moves from insight to evidence, then to the competency, the benefit and the significance.
• Theory is used briefly to explain the experience, and the learner’s own voice remains central.

If you want your own TMA01 checked against the task wording and APA 7 conventions, our SUSS assignment help and tutor-marked assignment answers pages explain how we work with your own evidence.

About the expert

Hui Yan Lee holds a Master’s in Industrial-Organizational Psychology from the University of Minnesota. Hui Yan Lee’s expertise is in psychology, especially organisational behaviour, employee motivation, job satisfaction and work-life balance. Hui Yan Lee works as a senior HR consultant and as an academic writer at Singapore Assignment Help.

References

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2