Exploring the experience of using music and creative mark-making as a reflective tool during coaching supervision: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
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
Coaching supervision is still an emergent profession with a limited body of research to support its credibility and practice. This qualitative study is the first to explore the use of music and mark-making as a creative tool within coaching supervision and highlights information about both coach and coach supervisor experience. The research explores the question, ‘How does using mark-making in response to music within coaching supervision affect coaches’ experience of reflective practice?’ through semi-structured interviews, analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) methodology. Findings revealed that using music and mark-making as a creative tool within coaching supervision enhances reflective practice and supports the client-supervisor relationship, enabling highly effective supervision to take place. The results offer coaches, coaching supervisors, coach educators and researchers and other professionals in other contexts where supervision forms an integral part of professional support and development insights into using music and other creative tools in supervision sessions and the impact on reflective practice. Keywords: coaching supervision, music, creativity, coaching psychology, reflective practice
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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