Examining the Impact of Dialogic Learning on Critically Reflective Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: While research is beginning to reveal the potential of dialogue in sparking critical reflection (critically reflective ways of seeing), additional research is needed to guide the teaching of critical reflection toward enabling critically reflective practice (critically reflective ways of seeing and doing). An experimental study was conducted to investigate the impact of dialogic learning on critically reflective practice, compared to discussion-based learning. The dialogic intervention integrated the theory of Mikhail Bakhtin with the theory of critical reflection and critical disability studies. METHOD: In interprofessional groups of 4, medical, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology students were randomly assigned to a learning condition that used a reflective discussion or critically reflective dialogue about a pediatric patient case. All participants were then randomly assigned a clinical report for a novel pediatric patient and asked to write a hypothetical clinical letter to the child's school. Hierarchical logistic regression models were constructed to estimate the probabilities of sentences and letters being critically reflective. RESULTS: The probability of sentences being critically reflective was significantly higher for the dialogue condition (0.26, 95% CI [0.2, 0.33]), compared to the discussion condition (0.11, 95% CI [0.07, 0.15]). Likewise, the probability of letters being critically reflective was significantly higher for the dialogue condition (0.26, 95% CI [0.15, 0.4]), compared to the discussion condition (0.04, 95% CI [0.01, 0.16]). In both conditions, the probability of a letter being critically reflective was positively associated with the proportion of critically reflective sentences. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate dialogic learning prepared students to enact critically reflective practice when writing mock clinical letters. Students who participated in a dialogue engaged in a collaborative process of critical reflection and subsequently applied that way of seeing in the individual act of writing a letter. This study highlights how Bakhtin's theory of dialogue can advance critical pedagogy.
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 | 0.017 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".