Flying blind: The experience of online interprofessional facilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of the facilitator is known to be important in fostering productive interprofessional education (IPE) in the face-to-face (F2F) environment. Online learning can help surmount some of the logistical challenges in IPE by bringing together diverse professionals in multiple geographical locations. Best practices in F2F IPE facilitation are beginning to emerge, but there is scant literature examining IPE facilitation online. What little research exists has focused on the asynchronous environment and suggests that the skill sets of online and F2F facilitators have considerable overlap, but there are further demands in the online setting. This qualitative study sought to examine online synchronous IPE facilitation through the self-reported experiences of seven trained facilitators during a 12-week online course. Data collected through focus groups and targeted interviews were analyzed by the research team using constant comparison techniques. Four major themes were revealed: technology as a dynamic force, reduction in non-verbal cues, evolution of the online IPE group process over time and the importance of co-facilitation. The foundations of IPE facilitation were seen to carry over to the online setting. This study has implications for the training of IPE facilitators and for the design of online IPE learning experiences.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".