MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Helping Learners in Difficulty – The Incidence and Effectiveness of Remedial Programmes of the Medical Radiation Sciences Programme at University of Toronto and the Michener Institute for Applied Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2007· article· en· W2181710882 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ewa Szumacher, Pamela Catton, Glen A. Jones, Renate Bradley, Jeremy Kwan, Fiona Cherryman, Cathryne Palmer, Joyce Nyhof‐Young

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreInstitute for Christian StudiesMichener InstituteUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemedial educationMedicineMedical educationAcademic yearFamily medicineMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Academic difficulty can often be a significant problem for students in health professional programmes. Students in difficulty are often identified late in their training and run the risk of dismissal if remediation is not successful. Since the inception of the Medical Radiation Sciences Program (MRSP) at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Medicine, and the Michener Institute (MI) in 1999, a number of students have required remediation due to problems in the didactic or clinical component of their training. Not all remediation was successful, and a number of students have been dismissed. There is relatively sparse evidence in the educational literature regarding the nature of academic difficulties that health professional students encounter, and what constitutes appropriate remedial education. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the incidence and prevalence of remediation in the MRSP and the nature of the academic problems. In addition, this study looked at the type of remedial instruction that the Radiation Sciences Board of Examiners (BOE) recommended for these students as well as the effectiveness of these recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study consisted of a review of the academic records of students who failed one or more courses and underwent pre-clinical or clinical remediation, and who were presented at the Medical Radiation Sciences Board of Examiners at the University of Toronto between September 1999 and December 2004. Data extraction forms were developed to obtain demographic information, the nature of the academic problems, the remedial recommendation, and their outcomes. RESULTS: This study identified 69 students who were presented to the BOE 95 times. Forty-four students (44/69, 64%) were from the Radiation Therapy stream, 16 students (16/69, 23%) were from the Nuclear Medicine stream and 9 students (9/69, 13%) were from the Radiographic Technology stream. Most of the remediation occurred due to pre-clinical 50 (50/69, 72%), clinical 15 (15/69, 22%) and both preclinical and clinical problems 4 students (4/69, 6%). Out of 54 students who required pre-clinical remediation, 40 (74%) were promoted. Out of 19 students who required clinical remediation, 10 (10/19, 53%) passed their remediation. Six students (6/69, 9%) were dismissed from the programme due to unsuccessful remediation; 2 due to pre-clinical and 4 due to clinical problems. Based on these results, the remediation process at the MRSP was successful; however, 6 students (6/69, 9%) were dismissed from the programme during the last 4 years despite lengthy unsuccessful remediation. CONCLUSION: Our study provided an important perspective about the remediation process at the MRSP at the Michener Institute for Applied Health Sciences. Despite its retrospective methodology, it attempted to identify the magnitude of learning problems that lead to remediation, and identified the efficacy of the remedial programmes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Academy of Medicine SingaporeSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207