Unravelling the unknowns of reflection in classroom teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of reflection in education has emerged as an effective means of connecting theory with practice. However, the literature reveals limited empirical work on the conceptualization of reflection. AIM OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this qualitative research study was to understand more fully the meaning and use of reflection in teaching, and how reflection contributes to the development of teaching expertise in the classroom. Ethical approval. The study received ethical approval from the Faculty of Nursing Ethical Review Committee, University of Manitoba. Issues related to confidentiality of information, and power relationships between the investigators were addressed. Students were reassured that no data were collected about them during participant observations in the classrooms. METHODS: The investigators were the sources of data. Data were collected using five different methods over the course of two academic years, including written autobiographies, critical incident journals, classroom observations, debriefing following classroom observations and research team meetings. FINDINGS: The data were analysed using content analysis, and four themes were identified (i) making connections, (ii) developmental aspects, (iii) influence of context on reflection, and (iv) influence of emotions on reflection. Study limitations. The interpretation of the findings of this study should be used with caution given the qualitative design and small number of participants. CONCLUSION: Participation in the study increased the awareness of the investigators' personal use of reflection. The process of studying our own use of reflection allowed us to step outside the performance treadmill to better understand, accept and reshape what we do over and over in the classroom. This study supports an examination of one's experiences as a means of understanding reflection and its use in the classroom.
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 | 0.046 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".