The power of one: Looking beyond the teacher in clinical instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on clinical teaching in medicine tends to focus on preceptors and senior attending physicians as the primary source of learning for medical students. As a result, there is an artificial separation of 'teacher' from context in much of the research on clinical teaching in medicine. AIMS: The central aim of this study was to challenge the taken-for-granted assumption that student learning can be attributed primarily to a preceptor or attending physician on a rotation. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-two medical students and forty-one clinical faculty members generated explanations for a study that showed a positive effect on NMBE results for 3rd year clerkship students who had at least one highly effective clinical teacher during their clinical rotation in medicine. RESULTS: Student and faculty explanations resulted in fourteen factors and six propositions describing the nature of highly effective clinical teaching. Students believed contextual factors influenced their own learning, but did not comment on that possibility in the study (Griffith CH, Georgesen JC, Wilson JF. 2000. Six-year documentation of the association between excellent clinical teaching and improved student examination performance. Acad Med 75(10): October Supplement). Most clinical faculty did question the assumption that one teacher could have that effect. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend refocusing research on clinical instruction toward engagement within a community of professionals, rather than attributing 'power' to a single clinical teacher.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".