Introducing a multimedia course to enhance health professionals’ skills to facilitate communities of practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Scholarship about communities of practice (COP) is uncovering evidence that interactivity between community members contributes to improvement in practice. Leadership and facilitation are crucial elements of successful COP implementation. The purpose of this paper is to describe an innovative COP facilitator's course and report on the experiences of participants in the first course. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: In response to this need and emerging evidence, an on-line COP facilitator's course was developed and implemented in Alberta, Canada, in 2011. This course included a home-based COP practicum, introductory face-to-face session, an on-line discussion board moderated by faculty and on-line learning modules. Evaluation of the course was formalized in a qualitative study incorporating content analysis of postings, semi-structured interviews of successful participants and narrative responses to questions in a post course survey. FINDINGS: A total of 15 of 22 participants perceived they acquired basic knowledge about community facilitation by completing the self-learning modules and assignments. Many did not establish home-based COP and only partially participated in the interactive components of the course. Six participants successfully completed the course by establishing home-based COP and actively participating in the social and interactive components of the course. They perceived they met course objectives and greatly benefited from participation in the course, in particular when they pushed themselves to facilitate in new and different ways, and when they were actively engaged with their home-based COP where they could practice and receive feedback. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: While the main reasons why participants dropped out or failed to complete all course components were reported, the experiences and perceptions of six participants who successfully completed all course components form the major part of the evaluation of the course and hence introduce bias. A more in depth analysis of why learners are reluctant to engage in participatory learning could be the focus of further studies. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The following key recommendations emerged in the study alongside recommendations for further study of best practices in supporting COP facilitation. First, a formal interview before enrollment into the COP facilitator's course is recommended to reinforce the comprehensiveness, time commitment and the practical applications intended within the course. Second, methods of "aggressive facilitation" with skilled COP facilitators can best model facilitation to those involved in the course. Third, supporting course participants to trial out a diversity of community facilitation skills in the safety of the course is crucial to success. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The collaboration, networking and interactivity of interdisciplinary health care workers is of tremendous consequence to health outcomes and a vital concern to practitioners and administrators. Little is currently understood of the leadership and facilitation of the COP models and these discoveries lend a timely contribution to the field.
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 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".