Assessing Indigenous Cultural Safety Learning using Modified Reflexive Visual Arts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Assessing Indigenous cultural safety learning in pharmacy students using modified reflexive visual arts Innovation: Traditional quantitative assessment methods are often ineffective and impractical for the evaluation of Indigenous cultural safety learning. Existing qualitative assessment methods have shown potential in small-class and experiential environments, but evidence to guide the scalability and use in a large lecture format is sparse. An innovative, visual arts-based qualitative assessment of cultural safety learning was developed and deployed to 223 first-year pharmacy students. The assessment was deployed in a pre- and post-term style in a foundational pharmacy module that included content on Indigenous health and cultural safety. The pre-term assessment included two activities for students: 1) a visual art self-reflection requiring students to use any visual art medium to depict what they think it means to practice as a pharmacist with cultural safety, accompanied by a brief written description and (2) an in-class session with a brief lecture component, small and large group sharing of reflections, debrief of experiences, and student peer review of the visual reflections. The post-term portion included a similar self-reflection activity and an in-class session that now asked students in their small groups to: 1) compare their pre/post reflections, and 2) collectively create a new summative visual that depicts the entire group’s thoughts. Surveys and a focus group were used as an additional source of data. Critical Analysis: Survey responses (n=215) indicated that feedback for the assessment was highly positive, with 77% of students recommending the activity for future first-year pharmacy students. Students also validated the utility of the assessment, with 70% strongly or somewhat agreeing that the activity was valuable for their learning, 80% strongly or somewhat agreeing that the activity stimulated their thinking, and 81% strongly or somewhat agreeing the activity accurately reflected their true feelings on practicing cross-culturally.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".