The transition from face-to-face to online CME facilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the experiences of nine medical teachers who transitioned from face-to-face teaching to facilitating a course in an online environment. The authors examined the reasons why the teachers agreed to facilitate an online course, the challenges they encountered and their practical solutions, and the advantages and disadvantages they perceived to this teaching environment. Thirty-minute phone interviews were conducted. An iterative process was used to develop the themes and sub-themes for coding. Teachers reported being attracted to the novelty of the new instructional format and saw online learning as an opportunity to reach different learners. They described two facets to the transition associated with the technical and facilitation aspects of online facilitation. They had to adapt their usual teaching materials and determine how they could make the 'classroom' user friendly. They had to determine ways to encourage interaction and facilitate learning. Lack of participation was frustrating for most. This study has implications for those intending to develop online courses. Teacher selection is important as teachers must invest time in course development and teaching and encourage participation. Teacher support is critical for course design, site navigation and mentoring to ensure teachers facilitate online discussion.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".