Barriers and Facilitators of Reflective Practice in Counsellor Education: Critical Incidents from Doctoral Graduates.
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
This qualitative study involved fi ve doctoral counselling students from a major Canadian university who shared critical incidents of barriers and facilitators of refl ective practice in their graduate experiences. Sixteen incidents engendered refl ection while eight hindered open refl ection. Conditions found to facilitate refl ective practice included (a) experiencing a trusting relationship, (b) opening up with fellow students, (c) engaging in refl ective tasks, (d) having self-trust/risking, and (e) interacting with supportive academic personnel. Conditions found to create barriers to open refl ection included (a) experiencing mistrust/unsafe relationship, (b) interacting with non-refl ective fellow students, (c) receiving unsupportive/jarring feedback, (d) facing a systemic barrier/unsafe educational landscape, and (e) interacting with unsupportive academic personnel. Research limitations as well as implications and recommendations for counsellor development and directions for future research are provided. resume
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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