What is reflection? A conceptual analysis of major definitions and a proposal of a five‐component model
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
CONTEXT: Although reflection is considered a significant component of medical education and practice, the literature does not provide a consensual definition or model for it. Because reflection has taken on multiple meanings, it remains difficult to operationalise. A standard definition and model are needed to improve the development of practical applications of reflection. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted in order to identify, explore and analyse the most influential conceptualisations of reflection, and to develop a new theory-informed and unified definition and model of reflection. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify the 15 most cited authors in papers on reflection published during the period from 2008 to 2012. The authors' definitions and models were extracted. An exploratory thematic analysis was carried out and identified seven initial categories. Categories were clustered and reworded to develop an integrative definition and model of reflection, which feature core components that define reflection and extrinsic elements that influence instances of reflection. RESULTS: Following our review and analysis, five core components of reflection and two extrinsic elements were identified as characteristics of the reflective thinking process. Reflection is defined as the process of engaging the self (S) in attentive, critical, exploratory and iterative (ACEI) interactions with one's thoughts and actions (TA), and their underlying conceptual frame (CF), with a view to changing them and a view on the change itself (VC). Our conceptual model consists of the defining core components, supplemented with the extrinsic elements that influence reflection. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents a new theory-informed, five-component definition and model of reflection. We believe these have advantages over previous models in terms of helping to guide the further study, learning, assessment and teaching of reflection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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