Evaluating an embodied mindfulness approach to teach reflective practice to MSW students: a mixed methods case study
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
Reflection is a key component of practice, supporting social workers to learn from past experiences and navigate the uncertainty and ambiguity that is common within our work. While the benefits of reflective practice are well documented, there remains considerable debate as to how it is taught and evaluated, with variability across the health and social service professions. The authors sought to evaluate an embodied approach to teaching reflective practice, grounded in mindfulness and contemplative pedagogy. Using a mixed-methods case study research design, we evaluated the teaching approach by triangulating three sources of data: questionnaires, written reflective exercises, and a focus group. The findings suggest that the teaching approach described in this study supported participants to develop the competency of reflection in a way that was distinct from previous learning. It also supported participants to strengthen learning about themselves, both personally and professionally, and to apply mindfulness and reflection in practice. The authors see potential for expanding this teaching approach beyond the specific context of a social work direct practice course in mindfulness and recommend research to further explore adaptation of the approach.
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 | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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