Transformative Learning in Field Education: Students Bridging the Theory/Practice Gap
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
Abstract In a four-year, four cohort study utilising a series of six focus groups, forty Masters of Social Work students preparing to graduate defined their personal and professional experiences of transformation in their respective social work field education settings. Using an inductive thematic analysis, students highlighted four key themes in their transformative learning (TL) process: (i) defining the nature of disorienting dilemmas in field education; (ii) critical self-reflection, coping and moving through disorienting dilemmas; (iii) identifying the transformative outcomes in a field context; and (iv) facilitative factors to TL in field education. The findings illuminate the essential role of the field supervisor in creating ‘relationship’. The field supervisor/student relationship is the conduit to students’ deep learning, critical reflection, identity shifts and empathy supporting the student’s navigation through their disorientating moments towards transformative and meaningful outcomes. This study extends our understanding of the role of TL theory within experiential learning contexts and the feasibility of its use in the social work field education experience.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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