The Evolution of a Professional Practice Forum: Balancing Peer-to-Peer Learning With Course Objectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Opioid Treatment Accreditation Course (OTAC) is a mandatory accreditation requirement in New South Wales, Australia, and aims to prepare medical practitioners for the provision of safe and effective Opioid Substitution Treatment to people with opioid dependence. The course has a strong focus on safe prescribing practices and the course design includes a Professional Practice Forum that is engaging for participants and effective at imparting complex ideas and concepts that do not place additional time constraints on already time-poor health professionals. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to use participatory action research methods to develop and evaluate an online Professional Practice Forum that is a key component of the OTAC teaching and learning experience. METHODS: Three evaluation cycles were implemented with three cohorts of participants (N=40) to inform the design and review of the updated OTAC course. Overall, the study relied on participatory action research methods to enhance a sense of online community and to revise the Professional Practice Forum component of the course. Findings from survey feedback and an examination of Web metrics were used to monitor participant learning and were subsequently subject to thematic analysis in order to identify key themes. RESULTS: The use of participatory action techniques in the redesign of the OTAC course was a successful means of engaging with participants and resulted in four revisions based on feedback from facilitators and participants. The Professional Practice Forum was rated highly and received positive feedback from both moderators and participants. CONCLUSIONS: The use of interactive forums in online learning in an educational module for adult learners can prove extremely valuable as a means for participants to share their expertise and improve their learning outcomes. In particular, the use of sticky and welcome threads were significant features that enhanced interactions between participants and facilitators and resulted in increased quantity and quality of postings. These findings can help inform future researchers on how to develop peer engagement modules that are amenable to assessment and that build an online sense of community.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.092 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".