Emotional Regulation in Peer-To-Peer Role-Play in Canadian Social Work Education: The Contribution from Standardized Clients in Medicine
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
Peer-to-peer role-play in social work education continues to have widespread use in the teaching of generalist social work skills. For many students, however, the unfamiliarity of role-playing the client in conjunction with discussing clinical concerns may lead them to become emotionally dysregulated during the social work-client encounter. To explore strategies by which students can maintain emotional regulation when playing the client role, this study garnered the perspectives of Standardized Clients from Canadian medical schools who conduct repeated, simulated performances in the client role. Standardized Clients (N = 116) responded to an online, qualitative survey which explored how they manage their emotions during simulations. Thematic analysis revealed the following regulation strategies: 1) Internal: a) Distance self from the role, b) Immerse in the role, c) Focus on emotions; and 2) External: a) Putting on a performance, and b) The importance of self-care. This paper offers suggestions for social work educators to assist students playing the client in peer-to-peer role-play exercises.
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 | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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