MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109776910 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v3n3p102

The reflective journal: A tool for enhancing experience- based learning in nursing students in clinical practice

2012· article· en· W2109776910 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bagnato Silvia, Valerio Dimonte, Lorenza Garrino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPsychologyReflective practiceMedicineMedical educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.488 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207