MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559737124 · doi:10.21125/iceri.2016.1548

EXPERIENCE AND REFLECTION: CURRICULUM UNITS TO DEVELOP GENERIC SKILLS IN SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY STUDENTS

2016· article· en· W2559737124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helena Germano, Joaquim Gronita

Bibliographic record

VenueICERI proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumReflection (computer programming)Computer scienceMathematics educationSpeech therapyPsychologyPedagogyProgramming languageMedicineAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) program (Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, Portugal) integrates a domain of personal and professional development since the implementation of Bologna process. This domain includes nine curriculum units called Experience and Reflection (ER), with 54 hours each (25 contact hours). ER intends to develop generic competences that allow students to integrate forms of relationship relevant for the clinical dimension of Speech Therapy and to know how to avoid risk situations for themselves and others. ER was created based on the following theoretical frameworks: intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence (Gardner, 1983); Empowerment in education - critical thinking (Harvey, 2004); Reflection (Law et al, 2007); Tutoring and Mentoring; Double loop learning (Brockbank & McGill, 2006). This set of 9 Curriculum units has subject specific topics (eg. communication styles, clinical interview, diversity, team work, attending families, reflection on clinical practice) through which generic skills are developed: self-knowledge, time management, assertiveness, creativity, cooperation, leadership, resilience, to manage situations of change, attending the other, counseling, to manage diversity, contacts network. The objective of this work is to analyze the perspective of students about ER and their self-assessment on generic skills acquired along the 9 ER. Method: Data was gathered in 3 different academic years: 2013, 2014 and 2016. In 2013, 14 students performed a reflection focusing on the topics: relevance in the academic curriculum; what represented to me; competences fully developed and under development. In 2014, students filled a self-assessment questionnaire based on the competences defined by NetQues-CPLOL to a newly graduated speech and language therapist (generic competences included). They graded each question with a likert scale from 1 to 5 where 1=not acquired and 5=completely acquired. In 2016 students filled the same questionnaire and reply to open questions asking a reflection on the same 3 topics asked in 2013. A content analysis of the qualitative data was performed, and the results of the questionnaire were analyzed. Results: Through the content analysis, major themes observed were: development of personal and professional skills (e. g. self-awareness, critical thinking, management of unexpected situations, humanity in health care, active learning, constructive self-assessment), initial misunderstanding of the utility of ER, full understanding when at stage, relevance for academic curriculum, teaching methodology. The self-assessment of generic competencies was equivalent in both years with mean values between 4 and 5. Conclusions: The positive evaluation of students demonstrated that the objectives of ER were met. It is evident that the generic skills are perceived as acquired and as essential for quality professional practice. The teaching methodology is considered appropriate and relevant for students, as they could “transform teaching and learning in an active process for understanding” (Harvey, 2004). We can conclude that the existence of ER in the curriculum is relevant and differentiating.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICERI proceedingsSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207