MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developing critical reflection for professional practice through problem‐based learning

2001· review· en· W2165329902 on OpenAlexaff
Bev Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningReflective practiceProfessional developmentNurse educationPsychologyCritical thinkingConceptualizationPedagogyCompetence (human resources)Engineering ethicsMedicineMedical educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To explore the influence of current learning traditions in nursing on the development of reflection and critical reflection as professional practice skills and to offer suggestions for nursing education that will specifically facilitate the development of critical reflection. ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRUCTS: Mezirow's transformative learning theory, Barrows conceptualization of problem-based learning (PBL). METHODS: Integrative literature review of published literature related to nursing, health science education and professional education from 1983-2000. FINDINGS: Professional education scholars concur that specialized knowledge is clearly essential for professional practice, however, they also suggest that self-consciousness (reflection) and continual self-critique (critical reflection) are crucial to continued competence. While strategies to facilitate reflection have been outlined in the literature, specific strategies to facilitate the development of critical reflection and implications for nursing education are much less clear. Advocates of reflective and critically reflective practice suggest that the development of these abilities should be inextricably linked to professional development and can be developed through active repeated guided practice. In health care, PBL based on constructivism, has been identified as one way to facilitate the development of these skills. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing learners exposed to PBL develop the ability to be reflective and critically reflective in their learning and acquire the knowledge and skill within the discipline of nursing by encountering key professional practice situations as the stimulus and focus of their classroom learning. The learners' ability to be both reflective and critically reflective in their learning is developed by critical questioning of the faculty tutor during situational analysis, learning need determination, application of knowledge, critique of resources and personal problem-solving processes, and summarization of what was learned.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.401 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations184
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207