The Use of Public Reflection to Promote Workplace Learning and Expert Thinking Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public reflection is the practice of periodically stepping back in order to ponder and make explicit the meaning, to self and others in the immediate environment, what has recently transpired, been planned, observed, and achieved in practice (Raelin, 2000). It illuminates what has been experienced by both the self and others, providing a basis for future action. It is a means of transferring individual learning into team learning into organizational learning (from the intrapersonal to the system); uncovers "theories-in-use", those implicit assumptions and beliefs that guide actions; creates shared meaning and knowledge, which is the foundation for practice-based learning; and promotes reflective practice by developing a metacognitive perspective. This paper will discuss the research results of an instrumental case study that charted the impact of the use of the format of public reflection on a system of four novice group facilitators / process consultants. The participants engaged in an intensive collaborative process of meaning making which promoted qualitative changes in the levels of expert cognitive and metacognitive thinking skills. Data sets included videotaped debriefing and planning sessions, individual and group interviews, and written reflection diaries, covering the entire lifespan of the team.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".