The reflective journal: A tool for enhancing experience- based learning in nursing students in clinical 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
Background: As a tool for documenting and accompanying students’ actions, the journal has an educational value: it can be used to record, recollect and re-elaborate experiences through a reflective, non-intimate writing. The study was carried out at the Degree Course in Nursing at the University of Turin (Italy), during a training period of six weeks at the Unit of Functional Reeducation of the hospital “M. Adelaide - C.T.O.”. The aim is to understand the level of reflection that students can reach using the journal and what they think about this experience in terms of learning opportunity. Methods: The group of thirteen students in second and third year graduation course was invited to write daily, for fifteen consecutive days, a journal that describes their experience in training. Subsequently, the journals were analyzed with a qualitative method based on the seven levels of reflectivity that Mezirow had proposed within the transformative theory applied to adult learning. After this first phase, the group of students was invited to take part in a focus group to share and discuss their experience. The focus group was designed in semi-structured form. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes arising from the data. Result s: Twelve journals were analyzed. Students have reflective ability, especially with respect to Mezirow’s first three levels. The main findings showed that keeping a journal helps students to effectively enhance their experiential learning during the training period. For the focus group six students were involved. The following themes emerged: embarrassment and uneasiness, anonymity, evaluation, efficacy of the tool in experiential learning. Conclusions: The study enriches the debate on the use of journals confirming what has already been described in literature with respect to journals potential in terms of fostering and stimulating a professional practice of a reflective type.
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 | 0.031 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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