Community family medicine teachers' perceptions of their teaching role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our study explored community preceptors' perceptions of their teaching role, to better understand effective ambulatory and community-based teaching. METHODS: Bandura's social cognitive theory and Schön's notion of reflective practice guided conceptual development of an interview exploring preceptors' views of their role, teaching goals, teaching techniques, student assessment practices, factors affecting teaching and learning, and balance of patient and student needs. Preceptors reflected also on a significant personal teaching experience. A total of 17 highly student-rated preceptors participated. A trained interviewer conducted each interview; all were transcribed and subjected to content analysis. RESULTS: Preceptors (male, 14; female, 3) described learner-centred approaches, setting goals jointly with the student. Demonstration, guided practice, observation and feedback were integral to the experience. Preceptors saw student comfort in the environment as key to effective learning; they attempted to maximize students' learning and breadth of experience. They wanted students to understand content, "know-how" and "being a family physician". Patients remained the primary responsibility, but learners' needs were viewed as compatible with that responsibility. Many preceptors perceived a professional responsibility as "role models". CONCLUSIONS: Preceptors recognized the dynamic environment in which they taught students, and they described strategies which demonstrated how they adapted their teaching to meet the needs of the learner in that environment. These teachers combined learner-centred approaches with sound educational practices, broad learning experiences, attention to student learning and concern for development of professional expertise and judgement. These findings may assist faculty development in family medicine, and other disciplines, in providing effective ambulatory care teaching.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".