Developing self efficacy in research skills: becoming research-minded
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The OSWE project’s aims to promote research capacity and develop outcome measures in social work education mirror the capacity and capability building ambitions articulated in the JUCSWEC research strategy (2006) and resonate with concerns about the limited research mindedness and competence of practitioners and social work students. This situation is not unique to the UK. A study from Canada (Unrau and Beck, 2004, p. 188) captures these concerns: \n \nWhile professional and academic expectations are that students integrate research into their practice frameworks…it is not at all clear to what degree students….are learning research skills. Furthermore, studies consistently show that social work students do not exercise research knowledge and skills in their early years of entering the profession. \n \nFurther synergies between the project discussed within this chapter and the intent to build research capacity in social work were created by focusing on the development of self-efficacy in research skills of social work students at Bournemouth University. This concern for research capacity and capability enhancement, or ‘collaborative capacity building’ (Burgess and Carpenter, 2008, p. 909), was reflected in the local project through the active collaboration between an established and an emerging researcher. This chapter describes the use of research self-efficacy as a tool to evaluate and promote student learning, through self-assessment and lecturer-assessment. We suggest ways in which the approach can be used to plan, predict and assist future learning. \n \nThe project rationale arose from the desire to increase and enhance research capacity and awareness in social work students. The underpinning premise is summarised by Holden: “when a social worker…has greater confidence regarding his or her research abilities he/she will feel more empowered as a social worker” (Holden et al., 1999, p. 465). This is because high self-efficacy ratings in research are consistently predictive of future confident and successful research behaviour in social workers in the USA (Holden et al., 1999). This confidence in being able to engage with research will enable practitioners to develop practice based on competent reading of research and contribute to the enhancement of the profession and its research base. \n
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 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 | 0.029 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".