The Education and Socialization of Audiology Students and Novices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is the fifth in a series of five articles explaining the findings of a constructivist grounded theory study. The theory is named RESPoND: Reflection in the Education and Socialization of Practitioners: Novice Development. Participants in the study included a cohort of audiology students, clinical faculty, and preceptors. This particular article focuses on the third of three facets that together explain the role of reflection in novice development, in the context of the RESPoND theory. The facet of focus in this article explains reflection as a developing behavior. This article also explores the overall RESPoND theory as a whole, as a process through which audiology students and novices develop and socialize into the profession, as understood through reflective processes. Audiology is a relatively young health profession with emerging literature on professional identity, professional socialization, and professional development. Rigorous research focused on understanding and representing the complex processes of becoming an audiologist and being an audiologist engaged in lifelong learning may be helpful in moving the profession forward as an autonomous and constantly improving profession. This article provides insight into the evolutionary journey form audiology student to novice audiologist, the development of reflective behavior within this process, and the intertwined processes of reflective development and professional development as audiologists are educated and socialized toward professional practice. These findings are presented as theory that is grounded in one cohort's experience. Yet, although contextually tied, the theoretical implications may extend to others involved in audiology education and practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".