A Diverging View of Role Modeling in Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in the area of role modeling has primarily focused on the qualities and attributes of exceptional role models, and less attention has been given to the act of role modeling itself (Elzubeir & Rizk, 2001; Jochemsen-van der Leeuw, van Dijk, van Etten-Jamaludin, & Wieringa-de Waard, 2013; Wright, 1996; Wright, Wong, & Newill, 1997). A standardized understanding of role modeling in medical education remains elusive (Kenny, Mann, & MacLeod, 2003). This is problematic given that role modeling is pervasively documented as an approach to teaching (Reuler & Nardone, 1994). Our study attempts to fill a void in this body of research by looking at what faculty are thinking, saying, and doing when they say they are role modeling. Individual semi-structured interviews with faculty members were conducted in the Department of General Surgery at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative methods for themes surrounding teaching and role modeling. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) faculty members think they are teaching when they are acting professionally; (2) faculty members become aware of teaching opportunities and act on them; and (3) faculty members employ evidence-based teaching methods, but they are incorrectly labeling them as “role modeling.” As a whole, our findings should help distinguish between role modeling as roles and responsibilities enacted while doing one’s job well, and teaching as facilitated instruction that helps connect knowledge with action (Clayton, 2006; Fassbinder, 2007). Contributing to a better understanding of how teaching is separate from role modeling has the potential to improve the scope and quality of teaching, ultimately enhancing the learning experience for trainees. Les recherches menées dans le domaine de l’imitation de rôles ont porté principalement sur les qualités et les attributs de modèles de rôles exceptionnels et on a fait moins attention à l’acte lui-même d’imitation de rôle (Elzubeir & Rizk, 2001; Jochemsen-van der Leeuw, van Dijk, van Etten-Jamaludin, & Wieringa-de Waard , 2013; Wright, 1996; Wright, Wong, & Newill, 1997). La compréhension standardisée de l’imitation de rôles dans les situations médicales reste élusive (Kenny, Mann, & MacLeod, 2003). Ceci est problématique du fait que l’imitation de rôles est fortement documentée en tant qu’approche pour l’enseignement (Reuler & Nardone, 1994). Notre étude tente de combler un vide dans ce corps de recherche, nous visons à examiner ce que les enseignants pensent, disent et font quand ils affirment qu’ils pratiquent l’imitation de rôles. Des entrevues semi-structurées ont été menées avec des professeurs du département de chirurgie générale de l’Université Queen’s, à Kingston, en Ontario, Canada. Les entrevues ont été enregistrées, transcrites et analysées en utilisant des méthodes qualitatives pour des thèmes liés à l’enseignement et à l’imitation de rôles. Trois thèmes principaux sont ressortis de ces données : (1) les professeurs pensent qu’ils enseignent quand ils agissent de façon professionnelle; (2) les professeurs prennent conscience des occasions d’enseignement et les mettent à profit; et (3) les professeurs utilisent des méthodes d’enseignement basées sur l’évidence, mais ils les qualifient à tort d’« imitation de rôles ». Dans l’ensemble, nos résultats devraient aider à établir la distinction entre l’imitation de rôles en tant que rôles et responsabilités adoptés pendant que l’on fait correctement son travail, et l’enseignement en tant qu’instruction facilitée qui permet de relier la connaissance avec l’action (Clayton, 2006; Fassbinder, 2007). La contribution à une meilleure compréhension de la manière dont l’enseignement est séparé de l’imitation de rôles pourrait améliorer la portée et la qualité de l’enseignement pour, en fin de compte, améliorer l’expérience d’apprentissage des stagiaires.
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 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 | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".