Help or Hindrance – the Value of Field Trips as a Form of Experiential Learning for Social Work Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field trips to augment in class learning hold valuable learning opportunities and can be transformative when observing context is important to understanding complex issues such as mental health and addiction. However, student reflections papers written after participating in the field trip were reviewed over a five-year period and identified that this form of experiential learning also resulted in harm to some social work students. Using a phenomenological approach (van Manen, 1990) to secondary data analysis, 53 papers identified four clusters of meanings related to discomfort, appreciation/ambivalence/regret, personal experiences of trauma and power. These individual experiences collectively raised larger questions around social work pedagogy and how educators should prepare students when confronted with distressing situations. We wondered to what degree witnessing such conditions became either a transformative experience as described by Rone (2008) or re-enacted individual experiences of past trauma. With field experience a pedagogical cornerstone to a career in Social Work, we advocate for ethically balancing between safeguarding students from feeling acute distress or re-experiencing trauma as a result of field trips, while ensuring they are professionally prepared to enter the profession upon graduation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".