Critical reflection: a student’s perspective on a ‘pedagogy of discomfort’ and self-compassion to create more flexible selves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I explore Fook’s model of ‘Critical Reflection on Practice’ and how discomfort and vulnerability can become an impediment to authentic critical reflection and transformational learning. This paper is written from my perspective, as an emerging social worker to uncover how the integration of Boler’s ‘pedagogy of discomfort’ and practices of self-compassion into Fook’s model of critical reflection can heighten awareness, deepen reflective possibilities, and create more flexible selves. Including a ‘pedagogy of discomfort’ into critical reflection can serve to guide practitioners and students through the vulnerable process of uncovering cognitive, affective, and habitual patterns linked to dominant ideologies and hegemonic forces. The inclusion of self-compassionate teachings into the model of critical reflection better equips practitioners and students with tools to withstand the emotional labour that results from discomfort and reflection. With these tools, practitioners can reconstruct their experiences with new insights to engage in transformational change for personal and professional growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".