What makes a quality occupational therapy practice placement? Students’ and practice educators’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Practice placement experiences are crucial to enable students to integrate theory with practice, demonstrate professional and interpersonal skills and build confidence in their practice skills. This study addressed practice educators' and students' perspectives regarding quality practice placement experiences. METHOD: In total 29 students, 41 practice educators and eight practice education staff members across three Queensland universities participated in focus groups or individual interviews (N=78) focusing on their views about quality learning experiences on placements. RESULTS: Key themes described university preparation and processes, a welcoming learning environment, detailed orientation and clear expectations, graded program of learning experiences, quality modelling and practice, consistent approach and expectations, quality feedback, open and honest relationships and supervisor experience and skills. These findings were consistent with research previously undertaken in Australia and Canada that had investigated either student or practice educator perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: This article synthesises the perspectives of these stakeholder groups and has led to the development of quality indicators across the phases of placement establishment, preparation, maintenance and review. Although having sufficient placements can be challenging for university programmes, ensuring that the experiences provided are of high quality is also important and requires significant attention by university academics and practice education staff, practice educators, managers and practice organisations alike.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".