Encouraging reflection: Do professional development workshops increase the skill level and use of reflection in practice?
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
Abstract Reflection is a way of evaluating best practice and challenging existing norms, while at the same time, considering one’s personal values and assumptions in our personal and professional lives. However, many health practitioners may lack the skills to do this effectively. Through participation in a series of three workshops, practitioners in the Radiation Medicine Program at Princess Margaret Hospital have learned and acquired new skills to encourage reflection and reflective practice in themselves, their colleagues as well as with their students. A pre- and post-course survey was used to ascertain their level of knowledge of reflection and reflective practice. An additional survey at 3 months assessed the frequency of use and ongoing comfort level with reflective practice. Results of the evaluation indicate that the participants’ knowledge of reflective practice has improved their understanding of reflection in clincal practice. They recognize the importance of reflection and anticipate increasing their use of reflection in/on practice. As well, participants have been able to sustain the positive momentum 3 months after the course was delivered.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| 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 it