Frontline learning of medical teaching: “you pick up as you go through work and practice”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Few medical teachers have received formal teaching education. Along with individual and organizational barriers to participation in teacher training programs, increasing numbers and altered distribution of physicians away from major teaching centers have increased the difficulty of attendance. Furthermore, it is not known if traditional faculty development formats are the optimal learning options given findings from existing studies document both positive and negative outcomes. There is a gap in research that explores how medical teachers learn to teach and also limited research regarding how medical teachers actually teach. The purpose of this study was to provide insight into how physicians describe their teaching of trainees, and the nature of their teaching development and improvement to inform faculty development programs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 36 physicians, with a broad range of teaching experience, purposefully selected from five disciplines: Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, Surgery, and Family Medicine. A qualitative, inductive approach was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Teaching was described as being centered on the needs of individual trainees, but was dependent on patient presentation and environmental context. For this group of physicians learning to teach was perceived as a dynamic and evolving process influenced by multiple life experiences. The physicians had not learnt to teach through formal education and then put that learning into practice, but had learnt to teach and improve their teaching through their trial and errors teaching. Life experiences unconnected with the medical environment contributed to their knowledge of teaching along with limited formal learning to teach experiences. Teaching practice was influenced by peers and trainees, feedback, and observation. The findings suggest these medical teachers learn to teach along a continuum largely through their teaching practice. CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that the participants' major resource for learning how to teach was informal experiential learning, both in and out of the workplace. This may have implications for faculty development strategies for medical teaching education.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,004 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».