Improvisation Games in a Pharmacy Communications Course: “It was kind of interesting to get to step out of my science-orientated mind and get to be creative!”
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
Introduction: Improvisational exercises were integrated into the first year Pharmacy Communication courses to enhance students’ ability to listen and develop a conversation without anticipating its progression. Specific objectives were to describe pharmacy students’ experiences with improvisation and determine if improvisation influences how students learn communication skills. Description of Improvisation: In 2009-10, pharmacy students were introduced to improvisation games with a communication focus. After an initial training, half of the class used improvisation to prepare for two standardized patient-interactions. Evaluation: Three sources of data were collected over the course of the study: reflection assignments, a focus group, and course evaluation surveys. Four main themes arose: difficulties, pharmacy practice relevance, negative outcomes, and positive outcomes. Discussion and Future Plans: Pharmacy students were ambivalent towards improvisation; identifying both challenges and benefits. In future communication courses, improvisation games will be integrated into relevant lecture time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it