Reimagining the pedagogy of professional judgment and decision making in social work: teaching evidence-based practice in parallel with field practicum
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
Social work practice occurs in varied practice contexts. To promote successful service user outcomes, professional judgment and decision making are key. However, services are delivered in settings that may be complicated by a myriad of factors, all of which may negatively impact professional judgment and decision making. This complexity of service delivery makes it difficult for social work education to promote the knowledge and skills required for ‘real world’ practice. Evidence-based Practice (EBP) is one route to ethical and effective service, as it is a method of promoting decision making skills. However, EBP is not taught consistently in pedagogy, conceptualization, or application. A pedagogical model for teaching social work students professional judgment and decision-making skills through EBP is presented in this manuscript. EBP is the equal consideration of four key factors—case context, service user values and preferences, worker and organizational biases and experiences, research—which are assessed and integrated via critical thinking. This model presents teaching EBP within a seminar in parallel with field placements, where students are required to work through a case from their field placement. This model provides the time necessary for students to engage meaningfully in the process of learning and applying EBP.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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