Pivoting During the Time of COVID-19: The Implementation of an Online Writing Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expressive writing is associated with gains in clinical and non-clinical populations. Expressive writing has been particularly effective with vulnerable populations that may lack access to services. The Writers Collective of Canada (WCC) offers expressive writing workshops aimed at reducing social isolation for those in marginalized communities. COVID-19 required WCC to pivot their original program offerings of inperson workshops to virtual workshops. Given the dearth of information regarding the effectiveness of synchronous online expressive writing groups, a program evaluation of the online program was conducted. This project was a mixed-methods implementation evaluation that utilized the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) approach and consisted of three studies. Study 1 was an implementation qualitative case study. Study 2 was a mixed method utilization-focused evaluation (UFE) that focused on attendees of closed-registration workshops. Study 3 was a mixed method UFE that focused on attendees and facilitators of open-registration workshops. Data collection for all three studies occurred between June 2020 and May 2021. For the implementation case study, interviews with stakeholders (N = 6) were conducted to delineate WCC's implementation process, looking at all five CFIR domains. The focus of the mixed-method UFEs was reflecting and evaluating, a subcategory of the final CFIR domain. Similar results were found across both the closed- and open-registration participants. Quantitative data showed participants of closed-registration groups (attendees: N = 21) and open-registration groups (attendees: N = 17, facilitators: N = 23) endorsed improvement across outcomes and found the program to be acceptable. Qualitative data captured information regarding what worked well, issues that impacted participation, and suggested changes. The quantitative data demonstrated that attendees of both groups endorsed change in the areas queried, including hope, creativity, connection with others, self-expression, writing abilities, empowerment of voice, and leadership skills. Facilitators of the open-registration groups endorsed change in the areas queried, including satisfaction, creativity, connection with others, compassion, writing abilities, wellbeing, and leadership skills. The results from this study may be helpful for those considering offering online expressive writing workshops. The results of this evaluation can be a useful tool for WCC as they continue to grow their reach.
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 | 0.028 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".