‘Talking the talk’: school and workplace genre tension in clerkship case presentations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Socialisation into a community involves learning sanctioned ways of talking. This study investigates the case presentation genre as a site of socialisation into the clinical community of practice. METHODS: Sixteen oral case presentations and the teaching exchanges surrounding them (involving 11 students and 10 faculty members) were observed by paired researchers during inpatient paediatric medicine rounds. A total of 21 in-depth interviews were conducted with 11 students and 10 faculty. Both data sets were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed for emergent themes and rhetorical strategies. RESULTS: Students emphasised case presentation as a school genre and described the ideal presentation as free of interruptions. As a consequence, students' presentation strategies were directed towards getting through the presentation without questions. In contrast, faculty responses suggested an understanding of the genre as a way of constructing shared professional knowledge. Faculty feedback was often explicit about critical issues in constructing shared knowledge, such as handling uncertainty. However, student presentations rarely reflected this feedback. CONCLUSIONS: The school genre described and enacted by students conflicts in key ways with the workplace genre evident in faculty feedback, suggesting that school and workplace iterations of case presentation may be at cross-purposes. Such cross-purposes have implications, because when students and teachers perceive a genre differently, a 'gap' is created in their interactions. Even rich and contextually situated feedback may get lost or distorted as it crosses this gap. Explicit acknowledgement of the multiple and flexible iterations of case presentation will improve the learning that novices experience through acquiring this central form of professional 'talk'.
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 | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".