A faculty development workshop in narrative-based reflective writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Narrative approaches are used increasingly in the health professions with a range of objectives. We must acquaint educators with this burgeoning field and prepare them for the incorporation of story-telling in their pedagogical practices. The authors describe a template for a faculty development workshop designed to foster self-reflection through the use of narrative techniques and prepare clinical teachers to deploy such approaches. The design is based on a six-year experience in delivering introductory workshops in narrative approaches to medical teachers. The workshops, which served as a model for the template, have been offered to a total of 92 clinicians being trained to mentor medical students. A generic template is described. It includes a table of core concepts from narrative theory, a set of probing questions useful in a basic technical analysis of texts and a list of initiating prompts for exercises in reflective writing. A workshop organized and deployed using this template is deliverable over a half-day. The model has proven to be feasible and highly valued by participants. It can be adapted for other contexts by educators across the continuum of health professional education.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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".