Value of a Health Behavior Change Reflection Assignment for Health Promotion Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Health promotion is a recognized competency in the preparation and education of Addictions Counseling students. This qualitative study explores the value of a reflection assignment in an undergraduate health promotion course at the University of Lethbridge, Canada, towards developing Addictions Counseling students' health promotion competency. METHOD: In the course, students attempted a health behavior change of their own choosing, reflected on their experiences and completed a reflection paper. Thematic analysis was conducted on students' reflection papers (n=21) and on a transcript of a focus group with four students to generate a description of students' perceived value of the assignment for their learning, personal health, and future health promotion practice in the field of Addictions Counseling. RESULTS: Three themes marked students perceived increased capacity for healthy behavior and health promotion: (1) facilitating the change process; (2) integrating experiential and theoretical learning about health; and (3) growing as a health promotion practitioner and as a person with expanding capacity for health. DISCUSSION: This reflection assignment shows potential as both a learning process supporting future professional practice and as a tool for promoting health among undergraduate students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".