Pedagogical Methods of Teaching Social Justice in Social Work: A Scoping Review
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
Purpose: Social justice is a foundational social work value, but social work education continues to experience ongoing challenges with how to teach students to embody social justice values. The aim of this scoping review is to map empirical studies on teaching methods that translate social justice value into teachable curricula. Methods: Following Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework, we conducted a rigorous process in which we screened 5953 studies and included a final sample of 35 studies. Results: Our findings identified seven main teaching approaches: intergroup dialogue, online asynchronized discussion board, simulation and role play, group work and presentation, written reflection, community-engaged learning, and social action-oriented learning. In terms of competency development, most of the studies focused on awareness and knowledge versus skill-building. Most teaching methods emphasized students’ affective experiences during the social justice learning activities. Discussion: Challenges, lessons learned, and future recommendations of each teaching method are presented.
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 | 0.098 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 it