MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041133991 · doi:10.2349/biij.4.1.e8

Enhancing reflective practice through online learning: impact on clinical practice

2008· article· en· W2041133991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jenny Sim, Alex Radloff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation TherapistReflective practiceContinuing professional developmentMedical educationAutonomyMedicinePsychologyHealth careProfessional developmentProcess (computing)PedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Traditionally, radiographers and radiation therapists function in a workplace environment that is protocol-driven with limited functional autonomy. The workplace promotes a culture of conformity and discourages practitioners from reflective and critical thinking, essential attributes for continuing learning and advancing workplace practices. As part of the first author's doctoral study, a continuing professional development (CPD) educational framework was used to design and implement an online module for radiation therapists' CPD activities. The study aimed to determine if it is possible to enhance healthcare practitioners' reflective practice via online learning and to establish the impact of reflective learning on clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The objectives of the online module were to increase radiation therapists' knowledge in planning for radiation therapy for the breast by assisting them engage in reflective practice. The cyclical process of action research was used to pilot the module twice with two groups of volunteer radiation therapists (twenty-six participants) from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. RESULTS: The online module was evaluated using Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation model. Evidence indicated that participants were empowered as a result of participation in the module. They began reflecting in the workplace while assuming a more proactive role and increased clinical responsibilities, engaged colleagues in collaborative reflections and adopted evidence-based approaches in advancing clinical practices. CONCLUSION: The study shows that it is possible to assist practitioners engage in reflective practice using an online CPD educational framework. Participants were able to apply the reflective learning they had developed in their workplace. As a result of their learning, they felt empowered to continue to effect changes in their workplace beyond the cessation of the online module.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.467 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Imaging and Intervention JournalSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207