Does Targeted Training Improve Residents' Teaching Skills?.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resident doctors have an important and integral responsibility of teaching a number of individuals. The purpose of this study was to measure the effectiveness of the University of Saskatchewan's resident-as-teacher training course - Teaching Improvement Project Systems (TIPS). Residents who attended the TIPS course from January, 2010 through June, 2013, were recorded in before the course as well as during Day 1 and Day 2 of TIPS. Resident teaching skills improved significantly as a result of the TIPS course, especially from pre-TIPS to Day 1. Further research is required to study to what extent and under what circumstances these skills are implemented after completion of the course.The College of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan is one of 17 medical schools in Canada with a full undergraduate program and many residency programs. Resident doctors who have completed their undergraduate medical degree have a significant teaching role in the College. In addition to their own training in a variety of specialties, they are responsible for a significant amount of teaching for medical students. In the course of their clinical duties they are also involved in teaching colleagues, co-workers, patients, and the public. Because the vast majority of resident doctors have little or no formal training in teaching, the College of Medicine requires residents to attend a resident-as-teacher training course - Teaching Improvement Project Systems (TIPS) - in their first year of residency. This course is a modified version of the TIPS course developed in 1975 at the University of Kentucky Center for Learning Resources. The course was designed specifically to improve teaching in the health professions. Until recently, its effectiveness as an intervention had not been thoroughly investigated.TIPS for Residents is a two-day course designed to improve teaching skills and knowledge. Residents teach in multiple and various environments - both formal and informal - and, as such, the TIPS course covers a wide variety of research-based skills and concepts relevant to effective teaching and learning in medicine (Amin & Khoo, 2003; Dent & Harden, 2013; Mackway-Jones, Walker, Council, & Britain, 1999). Day 1 focuses on the components of an effective instructional session: writing learning objectives and creating and delivering an effective motivational set (introduction to a teaching session, establishing a conducive learning environment, and providing relevancy), body (learning activities and content delivery), and closure (conclusion and review). There is also a module on effective use of technology, primarily PowerPoint. Day 2, typically one week after Day 1, addresses additional aspects of teaching and learning: learning preferences, feedback, and cognitive errors. Day 2 shifts the focus to more informal teaching which might take place in clinical environments and, as such, a discussion of clinical teaching techniques is included.There are many unique aspect of the course which we believe have contributed to its success. We use a flipped classroom approach whereby residents are required to do some pre-reading and preparation for much of what is discussed during the course. Day 1 and Day 2 are typically one week apart, encouraging reflection and taking advantage of spaced practice for optimal learning. Both days involve extensive group discussions and participation from residents and conclude with microteaching sessions where residents teach a medical topic to their colleagues. A session is a mini instructional session typically lasting between five and ten minutes. Other than the time limitation, residents are allowed to teach about any medical topic, in any delivery style they choose, and to any level of learner (including patients). In this way, they have the opportunity for a very practical teaching and learning encounter. These are followed by feedback from the resident learners as well as the facilitator. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".