Sustaining skills of critical reflection on practice: a pilot project
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 this paper, a teaching and research team discusses the importance of teaching, and supporting, critical reflection on practice (CRoP) skills to graduate level social work students within a Canadian university context. They describe the CRoP model, which is taught in a 12-week course and then integrated into practicum integration seminars and present the results of a pilot project. Using an online survey, they asked students to reflect upon what assisted and hindered their sustainment and integration of CRoP skills into their placement settings and what they thought might assist them in further sustaining their skills post-graduation. The use of a thematic analysis approach resulted in the development of the following themes which will be discussed fully: 1) The wholistic nature of CRoP as it is used for both personal and professional development; 2) The need for an academic grounding in CRoP followed by support for the natural integration of CRoP into ongoing social work practice; 3) The benefits of small group collaboration for learning and sustaining CRoP; and 4) The need for supervisory support of CRoP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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