Differences in radiation therapy staff and students’ perceptions of clinical teaching characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background : The clinical practicum provides an opportunity for students to apply and integrate classroom theory and clinical practice and competence effectively. In a teaching hospital, it is the responsibility of all staff to participate in clinical teaching and every interaction with a student constitutes a learning experience. The clinical teaching characteristics that are important to students and facilitate learning are not clearly defined in radiation therapy practice. Objective : To determine and compare the perceptions of the most and the least important clinical teaching characteristics as identified by radiation therapy staff and students. Methods : A self-administered, online questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was developed using clinical teaching characteristics identified in the literature and from Knox and Mogan’s Nursing Clinical Teaching Effectiveness Inventory. Participants were asked to rate on a 4-point, Likert-type scale the importance of the teaching characteristics with 1 being ‘not at all important’ and 4 being ‘very important’. Of the 150 questionnaires distributed, 49 radiation therapists and 10 students responded to the survey, constituting a 39% response rate. Results : There was generally a greater agreement between staff and students in terms of rating the least important teaching characteristics, being in the categories of interpersonal relationships and personality traits. Staff ranked characteristics in the category of Clinical Competence as most important, whereas the most important clinical teaching characteristics for students were dispersed amongst all categories. Conclusion : Radiation therapy staff and students place great emphasis on the demonstration of clinical competence in the teaching–learning process; clinical teachers should be made aware of and develop these characteristics, which ultimately assist in the student’s success.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".