Tensions in the Field: Teaching Standards of Practice in Optometry Case Presentations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Professional identity formation and its relationship to case presentations were studied in an optometry school's onsite clinic. METHODS: Eight optometry students and six faculty optometrists were audio-recorded during 31 oral case presentations and the teaching exchanges related to them. Using convenience sampling, interviews were audio-recorded of four of the students and four of the optometrists from the field observations. After transcribing these audio-recordings, the research team members applied a grounded theory method to identify, test, and revise emergent themes. The theme reported herein pertains to communicating standards of practice. RESULTS: Faculty optometrists demonstrated three ways of communicating standards of practice to optometry students during case presentations: Official Way, Our Way, and My Way. Although there were differences between these standards, the rationale for the disparities was rarely explicitly articulated by the instructors to the students. Without this information, the incongruity among the standards was left to the students to interpret on their own. CONCLUSIONS: The risk created by faculty not articulating the rationale underlying standards of practice was that students misinterpreted the optometrists' ways as idiosyncratic. Thus, opportunities were missed in the educational setting to assist students in making responsible decisions, locating their position in practice, and shaping their professional identity. Competing responsibilities of patient care and student education left instructors with little time to articulate rationale for standards of practice. Therefore, educators must reflect on innovative ways to bring into relief the logic behind their actions when working with novices.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it