How Reflective Practice Improves Nurses' Critical Thinking Ability
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
Purposeful reflection is consistent with adult learning theory. It is known to lead to a deeper understanding of issues and to develop judgment and skill. Required by law to ensure members' competence in their professional practice, the College of Nurses of Ontario recommends and has developed a tool for evaluating reflective practice. The tool focuses on key attributes said to be demonstrated by competent practitioners, including critical thinking (CT) and job knowledge. This study aimed to determine whether nurses engage in reflective practice and whether they perceive that it enhances their CT ability. Surveys were sent to 60 gastroenterology nurses at a large teaching hospital; 34 surveys were anonymously returned. All respondents engaged in reflective practice, and 24 reported using the college's tool. Nineteen respondents strongly agreed that their nursing practice had improved as a result. Critical thinking is difficult to assess because of a lack of clear-cut performance criteria. Improvement of CT was difficult to evaluate from the responses, even though all respondents participated in reflective practice. Both CT and reflective practice need to be better defined in order to examine and explain their relationship.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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