MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318574398 · doi:10.1177/2158244016638706

Considering Reflection From the Student Perspective in Higher Education

2016· article· en· W2318574398 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsAmbrose University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)Perspective (graphical)PracticumPedagogyInterviewCurriculumSelf-reflectionIdentity (music)PsychologyMathematics educationSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports the findings of a project to reexamine reflection from the student perspective that took place after a major curriculum revision. The project used a hermeneutically inspired action research method that involved interviewing 17 undergraduate theology students after a two-semester practicum to ascertain the ways in which students understand and use reflection in practice and as a means of establishing identity. The data revealed key themes that surround students’ understanding of reflection: (a) Students think and write about reflection in detached ways, (b) there is a connection between reflection and self-understanding and self-definition, and (c) crisis plays a role in reflection. The article concludes with further discussions of these themes and with recommendations for pedagogical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.375 · 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