MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193783235 · doi:10.1111/medu.14625

Dual and duelling purposes: An exploration of educators' perspectives on the use of reflective writing to remediate professionalism in residency

2021· article· en· W3193783235 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tracy Moniz, Carolyn M. Melro, Andrew E. Warren, Chris Watling

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityWestern UniversityMount Saint Vincent University
FundersRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
KeywordsReflective practiceReflective writingPsychologyMedical educationPedagogyGrounded theoryEngineering ethicsMedicineQualitative researchSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Professionalism lapses have high stakes for learners and educators. Problems with professionalism, unless appropriately and effectively remediated, may portend serious problems in practice. Yet, remediation for unprofessional behaviour is particularly challenging-and understudied. Increasingly, educators are turning to reflective writing as a remediation strategy in residency, yet little is known about what educators expect reflective writing to accomplish, how they choose reflective writing tasks, why they use reflective writing, or how they evaluate whether a learner has met expectations. We aimed to understand why and how postgraduate medical educators use reflective writing as an educational intervention to remediate professionalism. METHOD: In this constructivist grounded theory study, we interviewed 13 medical education professionals with experience using reflective writing to remediate professionalism across five Canadian medical schools. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively using constant comparison to identify themes and to understand the relationships among them. RESULTS: Medical educators reported using reflective writing as a learning tool to develop insight and as an assessment tool to unearth evidence of insight. The goal of learning may compete with the goal of assessment, creating tension that leads to uncertainty about the sincerity, quality and effectiveness of reflective writing as well as concerns about learner safety. Educators reported uncertainty about whether learners write to pass or to introspect and about how to judge the effectiveness of reflective writing as a learning tool. They expressed concern about creating a safe environment for learners-one that enables the genuine reflection required for insight development-while meeting requirements of remediation. CONCLUSIONS: Educators express ambivalence about using reflective writing to remediate professionalism in residency. Understanding the potential and pitfalls of reflective writing may inform more tailored and effective approaches to remediate professionalism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207