Dialogue for Change: Extending the Impacts of Teaching for Critically Reflective Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical reflection has long been theorized as a path toward addressing inequitable practices. However, a gap is emerging in health professions education and practice between what theory espouses and what research supports. While empirical studies have highlighted opportunities for critical reflection, the effects of teaching for critical reflection on learners’ actions, and the potential for those actions to contribute to social change, remain underexplored. This dissertation draws on theories and knowledge of critically reflective practice, dialogue, and critical disability studies to extend the chain of impact from education to action to potential social change. In this dissertation, I investigate the impacts of teaching for critically reflective practice in the context of school-based healthcare for children with disabilities and chronic health conditions. My dissertation leverages clinical letters to explore the chain of impact. I designed the studies in this dissertation to achieve three overarching research aims: 1) to investigate the effects of teaching for critically reflective practice on shifts in learners’ action and possibilities for social change, 2) to examine the role of Bakhtin-informed dialogue as a critical pedagogical approach, and 3) to explore the relationships between collaborative learning and collaborative practice. The results from my first study demonstrate the pedagogical potential of Bakhtin-informed dialogue in preparing health professions learners for critically reflective practice. The findings from my second study illuminate the ways critically reflective practice reconstructs and renegotiates the meaning of disability. The findings from my third study reveal a cascade of potential outcomes of critically reflective practice related to inter-sector communication, collaboration, and advocacy. Collectively, the manuscripts presented in this dissertation demonstrate how teaching for critically reflective practice through dialogic education supports learners in enacting informed social action and creates possibilities for changes in the way collaborative practice unfolds. My dissertation offers directions for designing education to prepare health professionals who embody a curiosity to question why things are the way they are, a view toward imagining how things could be different, and a commitment to taking informed steps to realize those visions.
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 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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".