Co-Creating a Transformative Learning Environment Through the Student-Supervisor Relationship: Results of a Social Work Field Placement Duo-Ethnography
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
In an in-house third-year social work research placement, a duo-ethnography showed that the student–supervisor relationship had far more impact on transformative learning than the assigned placement tasks. A model for co-creating an environment of transformative learning is described, putting student learning and growth at the center. Attributes that contributed to a transformative learning environment included being Trustworthy, Respectful, Engaging, Caring, and Humble. A range of actions within each of these attributes is described. The findings showed that in this context, a crisis-type of disorienting dilemma did not occur. Rather, transformation evolved as part of a learning outcome that included the development of a professional identity as a social worker. Findings suggested the need for further exploration of the role that humility plays in reducing the power imbalance in the student–supervisor relationship. The importance of addressing self-care and avoiding models that risk perpetuating patriarchy in the student-supervisor relationship were highlighted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it