MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2034680606 · doi:10.1097/00001888-200209000-00046

An Online Discussion for Medical Faculty

2002· review· en· W2034680606 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcademic Medicine · 2002
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInnovative Teaching Methods
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedical educationMEDLINEHigher educationPsychologyFaculty developmentMedicineProfessional developmentPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although online discussion groups are being used with increasing frequency in undergraduate and postgraduate education, their usefulness in faculty development has not been explored. The goal of this innovation was to offer an online discussion group following a faculty development workshop in order to reinforce workshop concepts and to allow participants to seek advice related to specific teaching and learning problems. We also wanted to assess the benefits of this educational tool. DESCRIPTION: We originally wanted to implement an online discussion group following a one-day workshop "The "Problem" Resident: Whose Problem Is It?" However, once this proposal was presented to our academic administrators, they asked us not to implement the discussion group because of concerns related to confidentiality and due process. They were worried that an online discussion might replace the faculty's evaluation and promotion guidelines, that teachers might no longer go to the "right" person to discuss a problem, and that we would give teachers a false sense of security. To respect these concerns, we changed the discussion topic and decided to implement an online discussion following a workshop "Promoting Interaction in Small-group Teaching." We chose this venue because it was less "emotionally charged" and because online discussions are seen as a potential adjunct to small-group teaching. We introduced the idea of a facilitated WebCT group discussion at the end of the workshop, and gave faculty members clear instructions on how to access the discussion group. Most of the workshop participants liked the idea of a follow-up to the workshop, but they preferred an e-mail listserv. We therefore decided to offer the WebCT discussion group to half of the participants, and an e-mail listserv to the others. To initiate the discussion, we posted several issues for both groups, and we awaited the participants' responses. To our surprise, only two individuals (8%) responded on the e-mail listserv, after several attempts to stimulate discussion. DISCUSSION: In looking back at our "medical experiment" we were disappointed that our efforts to facilitate an online discussion following a faculty development workshop were not successful. However, based on personal reflections and conversations with a number of the workshop participants, we feel that some important lessons were learned. Time and competing demands clearly pose a major barrier. In addition, the "perceived need" of the initiative is critical. Our faculty members did not see the need for discussing interactive small-group teaching techniques online. Faculty members' comfort with technology must also be considered. Many of our teachers were not familiar with the potential uses of online learning. Moving faculty development beyond workshops also remains a challenge. With these lessons in mind, we plan to initiate another online discussion with faculty members, based on a need that they have defined around a topic that they have identified as critical to their own development as faculty members. We continue to believe that follow-up activities are essential in faculty development and that we need to further assess the potential value of this educational method.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,945
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,462
Tête enseignante GPT0,606
Écart entre enseignants0,144 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle