Developing Repertoire: A Qualitative Study of Trainees' Self-Reflection on Clinical Practice/Développer Son Répertoire : Une éTude Qualitative Sur la Pratique De L'auto-Réflexion Chez Les Apprentis Cliniciens
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Students preparing for a profession in the helping field are expected to have good awareness and understanding of their own inner workings (Hill & Lent, 2006). This goal is usually addressed during the training process through an examination of how personal issues, assumptions, and previous experiences play out in the therapy room or under supervision (Elton-Wilson, 1994; Kimerling, Zeiss, & Zeiss, 2000). The outcome of this process is the fostering and crystallization of a habit of self-reflection, an ability which is now included among the core competencies of clinical training (Hatcher & Lassiter, 2007).Self-reflection is the ability to inspect one's ongoing experience as a way to develop professional knowledge (Schon, 1983). This activity is fundamental to clinical training and practice (Hoshmand, 1994). In outlining essential clinical competencies, Hatcher and Lassiter (2007) speak of metaknowledge as the capacity to assess one's current state of knowledge, especially its limits. In this way, self-reflection becomes one of the key components by which metaknowledge is achieved. It should therefore not be a surprise that self-reflection is used in clinical supervision.Neufeldt, Karno, and Nelson's (1996) study of the attributes of self-reflection established a foundation for our thinking about the interplay of self-reflection and supervision. A grounded theory analysis of the interviews of five experts in professional development sought to elucidate the processes and procedures by which new learning manifests. Their model suggests that self-reflection is central to the supervisory environment where the supervisee's experiences are examined and processed in an attempt to understand counselling phenomena. While Neufeldt et al. did not directly examine the reflective process of trainees, their ideas of the reflective learning process have been integrated into several models of clinical supervision (Stinchfield, Hill, & Kleist, 2007; Ward & House, 1998; Young, Lambie, Hutchinson, & Thurston-Dyer, 2011).The use of self-reflection within a supervisory context is widespread, and it also seems fundamental to training in general. Griffith and Frieden (2000) outline four specific practices that can be used by counsellor educators to facilitate reflective thinking in trainees, one of which is journal writing. Writing as a vehicle for selfreflection has a well-established tradition in human service professions such as nurse practitioners and teacher educators (e.g., Billings & Kowalski, 2006; Lee, 2005). However, it gets only passing mention as an activity intended for outside of supervision proper (Ochowski, Evangelista, & Probst, 2010). And despite its value to lifelong professional development (Skovholt, 2001), there are few empirical studies of its use in training.The training and supervision literature converges on the fact that self-reflection is essential in fostering the clinical development of skills and habits of supervisees. However, the literature on self-reflection is replete with supervisory and training suggestions for its use, without any empirical base. In fact, there is a clear lack of studies examining this important activity.The current study is exploratory in nature in that it focuses on the events or issues that trainees identify as they engage in self-reflective writing about their clinical work. Supervisors often have their own templates for what they consider important to the clinical development of their trainees, and this may be in stark contrast to what the trainee highlights or identifies as salient. Thus, the goal of the current project is to examine the self-reflective journals of counselling trainees that were written through their first experience in learning to be counsellors. Our goal was to observe their experiences as a way to understand their unique perspectives on the evolving process in learning to be counsellors and to gain some insights that will be useful to the training and supervision of counsellors and other professional helpers. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».