Developing successful workshops: a workshop for educators
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
BACKGROUND: Many educators have had little or no preparation in the design, delivery or evaluation of workshops. METHODS: This faculty development intervention consisted of a faculty development workshop on Developing Successful Workshops; a workbook to guide independent study; and peer consultations. Program evaluation included immediate and delayed post-workshop evaluations, tracking of site-specific activities, and assessment of self-perceived efficacy. RESULTS: Participants found the workshop very useful, highlighting the assessment of learner needs, goal-setting, "matching" of objectives to content and methods, and use of a structured framework as most beneficial. Nine months after the intervention, seven of eleven participants had conducted a workshop in their own settings. Self-assessment of skills in workshop design also increased. CONCLUSION: A workshop on Developing Successful Workshops can help participants to understand the principles of workshop design and delivery.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it