Change in reflections of physiotherapy students over time in clinical placements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Physiotherapy programmes are expected to develop reflective practitioners. Research has indicated that the reflections of senior students and clinicians are different from students beginning their clinical experience. However, most of these studies are cross‐sectional in nature. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe the changes in the reflections of a group of physiotherapy students from their first to their third clinical placements. Subjects were 15 female students (mean age: 20.1 years) in an undergraduate physiotherapy programme in the United Arab Emirates. They wrote weekly entries in a journal during their first and third clinical placements. They described an event, their reaction to it and how it might affect their future behaviour. Two evaluators independently read and coded the content of all journals, and then worked together to categorize the data, rate the level of reflection of each weekly entry and develop themes. The levels of reflection and the themes from the two time periods were compared. Quotes from individual students from both time periods illustrated the changes in reflections. Students’ highest level of reflection for each entry ranged from level 1 (only described the event) to level 4 (gained a new understanding), with a slightly higher mean level of reflection during the third clinical placement. Themes derived from the journals were Professional behaviour, Learning, Self‐development, and Ethical issues, in the first placement, and Communication, Ethics, Learning, and Scope of practice, in the third placement. In the latter placement, students were more confident and more focused on the client compared with their first placement. Although the overall themes were somewhat similar in the first and third clinical placements, students broadened their perception of the roles and responsibilities of physiotherapists and of the ultimate impact of their actions on the patient.
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 | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".