Developing a Tool for Assessing Students' Reflections on Their Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concepts of reflection and reflective practice, introduced by Schon, have been widely adopted in social work education where students are expected to demonstrate reflection in practice as a learning outcome. This brief paper reports on the development and testing of a tool for assessment of students' reflections on their practice following their performance in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) adapted for social work. Phase One involved an iterative process of conceptualizing and defining dimensions of reflection; identifying practice scenarios with specific issues to be played by 'standardized clients'; creating a set of questions for use by the rater in a reflective dialogue with the student; and creating a five-point rating scale. In Phase Two the scale was tested in a study with a five-scenario OSCE with 11 current MSW students, seven recent graduates and five experienced social workers. The study demonstrated promising reliability in the OSCE approach and scales and indicated construct validity in that it differentiated between social workers in training and experienced workers. Its potential for use in the measurement of outcomes is discussed. Keywords: Educational Outcomes AssessmentReflectionStandardized ClientObjective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) Acknowledgement This study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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 it