A pilot study designed to acquaint medical educators with basic pedagogic principles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Faculty development activities in medical schools regularly target teaching behaviours but rarely address basic pedagogic principles underlying those behaviours. Although many teachers have an intuitive or tacit knowledge of basic pedagogic principles, overt knowledge of fundamental educational principles is rare. AIMS: We conducted a short-term pilot study designed to transform teachers' tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge of pedagogic principles. We hypothesized that conscious awareness of these principles will positively influence their teaching effectiveness. METHODS: The intervention included a workshop, provision of a workbook on pedagogic principles and free access to educational consultants. For the intervention, we chose a purposive sample of experienced teachers at our medical school. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the impact of the intervention using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews revealed three notable findings; 1. Participants were surprised to discover the existence of an extensive body of pedagogic science underlying teaching and learning. 2. They were enthusiastic about the intervention and expressed interest in learning more about basic pedagogic principles. 3. The knowledge acquired had an immediate impact on their 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".