Fostering successful interprofessional teamwork through an undergraduate student placement in a secondary school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory case study examined an interprofessional placement of undergraduate students from nutrition, nursing, early childhood education, and child and youth care who collaborated to develop and deliver four healthy-living modules to secondary school students in Canada. An inductive thematic analysis was used to describe the teamwork that occurred between students. Data collected included focus groups with undergraduate students and preceptors, undergraduate students' reflections and secondary school students' evaluations of the modules delivered. Two major themes that emerged from all data sources were "team functioning" and "shift in perspectives". The undergraduate students identified several ways that facilitated their successful and positive teamwork with one another and also expressed how the placement experience improved their interprofessional skills. Findings from this study are discussed in relation to contact theory (Allport, 1954) and self-presentation theory (Goffman, 1963). This study suggests that providing undergraduate students with interprofessional placements in an educational setting can enhance interprofessional teamwork opportunities for students of various disciplines.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 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".