Simulation in Social Work Education: A Scoping Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This article presents a scoping review that synthesized empirical studies on simulation in social work (SW) education. The review maps the research examining characteristics of simulation studies in SW education and emerging best practices. Method: Using Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework to develop the methodology and following the PRISMA-ScR checklist, we selected 52 studies for this review. Results: Most studies were published in North America and included quantitative (37%), qualitative (31%), and mixed methods (33%). Simulation was used to teach generalist and specialized practice with interprofessional practice as the highest area of specialization. Simulation was also used for assessment purposes, and the Objective Structured Clinical Examination was a commonly reported method. We identified several facilitators and barriers to using simulation effectively for teaching and assessment. Conclusions: Our analysis permitted us to identify emerging best practices that can be used to guide teaching. Implications for SW research, teaching, and practice are discussed.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 it