Professional artistry revealed: business professors’ use of reflection in their teaching
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
This qualitative study explores how business professors describe, understand, and use reflection in their teaching practices to better understand their professional artistry. The study has three principle aims: first, to examine the use of a conceptual model of reflection-in- and -on-action in business professors' teaching practices; second, to explore the factors, feelings, actions, and consequences of business professors' reflection; and last, to understand how business professors learn, develop, and sustain their reflective practice. The data were collected from structured interviews conducted with 11 experienced business professors after viewing self-selected incidents on video of their teaching. The data indicated that while each professor's reflective practice is unique there are commonalities in reflection across participants. The unique and common aspects of reflection discovered in this study suggest: reflection as framing an experiment; reflection as emotional interaction; reflection as development; reflective practice as a system; and reflection as artistry revealed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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