Reflective Practice: Co-Creating Reflective Activities for Pharmacy Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflective practice is important in pharmacy education to support skill development for decision-making, critical thinking, problem-solving, and in continuing professional development and beyond. Despite the importance of reflective practice in higher education and professional practice, reflection assignments are not universally embraced by students. This project was initiated due to recent interest in the co-creation of pharmacy curriculum by students and faculty. The purpose of this project was to develop reflection assignments for pharmacy students. The principles of the analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation (ADDIE) instructional design framework guided the development of reflection assignment templates for three focus areas: personal development, professional development, and professional identity formation. Templates included background and definitions for these specific focus areas as well as objectives, instructions, guiding questions, assessment methods, and submission requirements. A previously tested assessment rubric was adopted for reflection assignments. Development involved target audience and expert reviews and a trial implementation was held in a year 3 patient care skills course. The co-creation process enriched the experiences of students and faculty involved in it. Future co-creation projects including groups of students, formal evaluation of outcomes, and impact on the program will further support integration of reflective practice in the pharmacy curriculum.
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 | 0.033 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".