Initial experiences with integrated learning sessions (ILS) - a new curricular feature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: One of the goals of curriculum renewal was to move away from a 'silo' approach to undergraduate medical education by promoting integration and offering opportunities for students to integrate their learning from the start of the program.The integrated learning sessions (ILS) were designed specifically to help students integrate concepts from across the curriculum though a combination of elements.Students were provided with a series of questions that required them to consider elements across content areas, to write responses to the questions, read the responses of their peers, discuss the responses in face-to-face sessions, and have a final discussion as a whole class.The combined synchronous and asynchronous format gave students the opportunity to work on their written and oral communication skills, their reasoning and critical thinking skills, and their leadership skills.Each of the sessions was facilitated by a clinical faculty member and attended by some faculty members who taught in that block.Staff members from the Medical Education Scholarship Centre (MESC) and the Health Science Information and Media Service (HSIMS) also assisted with the operation of the sessions.At the end of each ILS session, there was a quality improvement (QI) segment which asked students for feedback.Student feedback helped contribute specifically to the evolution of the ILS through its various iterations.For example, initially faculty members attended the small-group discussions, but student feedback suggested they were comfortable discussing the questions on their own because the purpose of the sessions was not learning new content but rather integrating content.The students also asked the facilitators to re-think the nature and substance of the questions so they could be provided with more complicated questions that would challenge them more to integrate the content they had learned thus far.A key success of the ILS was that the QI portion afforded the opportunity for timely, responsive changes to the sessions while they were running.One of the criticisms of end-of-course evaluations was that it is too late to act on the feedback or mediate the problems until the next offering.Furthermore, the students did not limit their comments only to ILS content.Students used the QI sessions to comment on various aspects of the program including facilitation/instructor, organization of courses and phase, content, assessment, ILS, and logistical considerations (scheduling, rooms).The timely, rich feedback used for the QI sessions during ILS have been expanded to include sessions
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it