Growing occupation‐centred therapists for the future: Understanding student experiences of learning about occupation and its place in occupational therapy practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Occupational therapy entry-level education is integral to how students obtain deep understanding of occupational therapy's core philosophy of occupation and its place in practice. However, there is a lack of research that explores occupation-centred education from the perspectives of students. Therefore, this study aimed to identify Australian entry-level occupational therapy students' experiences of learning about occupation, and its place in practice. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was adopted. Overall, 20 students participated in four focus groups lasting between 45 and 75 min. Data were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed in two phases, using reflexive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: There were three themes that encapsulated what helped students to better understand occupation and its place in practice: (1) making occupation real; (2) relating occupation to me; and (3) theory as a focussing lens. There was also a range of pedagogical strategies that helped students to better understand occupation: using active and interactive teaching and learning strategies. One additional theme indicated a challenge to helping the students understand occupation and its place practice: when practice education settings were not centred on occupation. CONCLUSION: Learning about occupation and occupation-centred practice may be facilitated by using practice examples, encouraging students to think about occupation in their own lives, teaching and applying occupation-centred theory, and employing interactive learning and teaching strategies. Student learning in practice settings where occupational therapy is centred on occupation is imperative. Further exploration of students' perspectives of learning about occupation across multiple occupational therapy programmes is warranted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".