Health and physical education pre-service teacher perceptions of journals as a reflective tool in experience-based learning
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 pedagogical use of journals as a reflective tool has been used in many academic disciplines. Researchers have studied the effectiveness of implementing journal writing as an academic exercise, and results have generally touted journals as a successful means of encouraging learning and reflection. However, little is known about how students perceive journal writing, particularly with pre-service Health and Physical Education teachers who are often inundated by attempts to make them into ‘reflective practitioners’ (Schön, 1983). The purpose of this study was to examine journal writing perceptions of Health and Physical Education pre-service teachers who participated in an experience-based learning activity. Results from this exploratory study indicate that journaling is appreciated by some pre-service teachers. While it supports the findings of previous studies that journaling can be an effective pedagogical technique, it raises the question as to whether or not journaling is for every student, particularly when considering academic specialization.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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