Reflection: A Critical Proficiency Essential to the Effective Development of a High Competence in Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflection, or the ability to step back from an experience and consider it critically, in an analytical, non-subjective manner, is an essential aspect of problem solving and decision making, and also of effective communication with clients and colleagues. Reflective practice has been described as the essence of professionalism and is therefore a core professional skill; rarely, however, has it been explicitly taught in veterinary curricula, and it has only a recent history in undergraduate human medical curricula. We describe here two preliminary case studies, one in a veterinary medical education context and the other within a human medical education framework, as examples of approaches to assessing a student's ability for ''reflection.'' The case studies also illustrate some of the key principles. Both of the case studies described had as their end goal the enhancement of communication skills through critical reflection. At Monash University, Australia, the majority of students were assessed as being at a level of ''reflection in development.'' The students in the Ontario Veterinary College case study showed moderately good use of self-awareness and critical reflection as a basis for modifying and integrating communication skills into practice. While both preliminary case studies point to the fact that students recognize the importance of communication and value the opportunity to practice it, few students in either case study identified the importance of reflection for lifelong learning and professional competence. Opportunities to complete critical reflection exercises in other parts of curricula and outside of communication would likely reinforce its importance as a generic skill. Ongoing scholarly approaches to teaching, learning, and evaluating reflection and self-awareness are needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".