The Nature of Reflective Practice and Emotional Intelligence in Tutorial Settings
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
The purpose of this paper was to assess the nature of reflective practice and emotional intelligence in tutorial settings. Following the completion of a self-report measure of emotional intelligence, practitioners incorporated a model of reflective practice into their tutorial sessions. Practitioners were instructed to utilise reflective practice and emotional intelligence with their students during weekly tutorials for three weeks. It was postulated that a relationship between reflective practice and emotional intelligence would emerge. Results indicated that reflective practice enabled practitioners to enhance their emotional intelligence skills, specifically self-awareness. In addition, focus group interviews identified that practitioners adopted a range of strategies to increase their own emotional intelligence skills and improve reflective practice. Considerations for future investigations would include a longitudinal design that would use semi-structured interviews to enable deeper understanding of reflective practice and emotional intelligence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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