Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some fields, written reflection is commonplace whereas in others it is uncommon. While athletic therapy education aims to produce reflective practitioners, written reflection is not a typical pedagogy employed. In 2014, the athletic therapy program at our institution began the implementation of a clinical presentation (CP) approach to facilitate competency-based curriculum requirements. This innovation to pedagogy required a reimagined approach to teaching, learning, and assessment. We describe one aspect of a larger SoTL study on this transformation, inquiring into the development of reflective practice through reflective writing. Students were asked to regularly reflect on their experiences in the clinic or field as part of their program. In this qualitative component of the study, we were able to gain insight into how students perceived the reflective process, how that evolved over their program, what were enablers and barriers to their reflection, and what was the role of feedback in their learning. The characteristics of student perceptions in each year, which followed a learning arc which we describe sequentially as “confused, conflicted, and convinced,” is explored, along with implications for pedagogy in assisting students to develope reflective professional 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".