Simulation in social work education: a qualitative study of standardized clients’ experiences
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
This explorative study provides insight into the experiences of standardized clients (SC) involved in simulation for social work education and research. The purpose was to contribute to scholarly conversations regarding SCs and to provide an empirical foundation to inform our simulation program by attending to the perspectives of SC participants who are key to simulation-based learning (SBL). A qualitative, cross-sectional survey was employed to understand these experiences. In doing so, this study attempts to ensure SBL design and implementation is more attentive to SCs who increasingly represent marginalized communities. SCs (n = 14) reported an enthusiasm for engaging with social work simulations as they find the work both interesting and meaningful. The findings demonstrate how incorporating SCs into teaching teams fosters a community of practice that can function to incorporate members of marginalized communities into professional education, and reshape pedagogical strategies for supporting the development of holistic competence.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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