MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unravelling the unknowns of reflection in classroom teaching

2002· article· en· W2107658237 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)PsychologyMathematics educationTeaching methodPedagogyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it