Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO) held a 4-day Train the Trainer (TTT) Workshop in Oporto, Portugal from March 18 to 21, 2013. This event was hosted by the Portuguese Society of Digestive Endoscopy and featured 10 faculty members and approximately 50 participants from around the world. Each participant was nominated by their respective national societies and came to the meeting as clinical educators aiming to learn enhanced educational and training skills, which could subsequently benefit their local programs. The goal of this article is to provide an overview of this course from a participant’s perspective. One of the biggest challenges faced by an educator is dealing with learners of varying prior knowledge and skills, along with varying degrees of motivation. Adding to this is the influence of language and different cultures and a limited amount of time, and it is evident that the organizers of this workshop potentially faced a number of significant challenges to deliver a meaningful, interesting, and personally relevant educational experience to each learner. On the basis of the feedback of my coparticipants, however, I can tell you that the TTT workshop succeeded in achieving a unique and highly stimulating educational experience that surpassed most, if not all, individuals’ expectations. From discussion with the members of the course faculty and a perusal of the TTT Web site, it is obvious that this is a common reaction to this course, which has been running since 2001. For this reason, I believe, it is worthwhile to describe the process of this course and some of my observations and feedback from the participants of what makes this course such a success. One of the earliest components of the course was an entry survey that was completed before arrival at the course in order to evaluate the participants’ perceived needs and familiarity with the content of the course. Although this may not seem like a vital component, I mention this because it quickly became evident to the participants that the course faculty members were making an enormous effort to continually evaluate and improve the course. The impact of these faculty efforts was clear from the questions and comments during the sessions. Each learner was encouraged throughout the course to reflect upon what their own learning goals were and what they could apply subsequently once they returned home after the course. Hearing each person discuss what was relevant to each of them really illustrated how much we have in common despite our different backgrounds, and yet how much variation in education and medical care delivery occurs around the world. Many aspects of this workshop were not only extremely valuable to the participants but also often novel, with numerous participants not having encountered this type of training previously, particularly not having undergone training from experienced educators with diverse and extensive backgrounds. This is an important point given that one of the WGO’s stated goals is to improve the standards of training, education, and practice of gastroenterology and hepatology worldwide with a focus on the low-resource nations. The workshop was organized into a variety of modules that comprised a large-group didactic session with interactive components, followed by small-group sessions that allowed participants to apply the various aspects of each session in more detail. Attendees were asked to put away laptops, tablets, and smart phones during the didactic sessions, which facilitated engagement in the course. Thanks to a dynamic faculty and willing participants, each lecture component was accompanied by much discussion, interesting comments and questions, and occasionally active debate sessions. Following each session and a short break, participants broke out into small-group sessions. The small groups were typically based upon challenging and relevant problems related to the previous session. On the basis of each task, groups were tasked with appointing a session chair, someone who would present the group findings back to the course and of working together on the problem. Interestingly, each group was able to observe over the 4-day course how much small group dynamics evolved over time, which was something that had been discussed in the education and teamwork modules. In terms of content, there were numerous modules that were presented. The earliest module, Education, presented important educational principles along with elements of adult learning. For many in the audience, this was a new material, but it laid the groundwork for subsequent interactions, particularly with respect to the small groups and to the use of feedback. In fact, feedback was integrated throughout the course, facilitating everyone’s active participation in the learning process. After being asked to present in front of the whole group and either receive or give feedback about the speaker’s presentation skills, participants quickly learned that this was no ordinary training course. The next module, Teaching Procedural Skills, challenged everyone to think differently about how they taught by breaking tasks into their smallest components and teaching each task individually, again using feedback and educational principles from the preceding session. By using simple tasks, learners saw how effective these methods could be and how easily they could be applied in a variety of sessions. That evening everyone from the course gathered at the hotel pool and participated in a spirited water polo tournament. Despite a lack of prior experience for most people, this was a highly entertaining activity that helped “break the ice” so as to speak and bring the groups closer together. Fortunately, the only injuries were sore throats from all the cheering, and everyone made it to the subsequent group dinner! I will mention that the breaks between sessions and the meal times were an enjoyable part of the course for everyone for a number of reasons, particularly because of the opportunity to interact with people from different cultures and to informally discuss education and medicine in the various cultures. The meals also featured local Portuguese cuisine, which added to the flavor of the course. I would be remiss at this point, however, in not acknowledging the role of the course hosts, the Portuguese Society of Digestive Endoscopy, in this workshop. Although the Portuguese are renowned for their hospitality, I had never experienced it first hand. It was clear from the beginning of the course that they went beyond the call of duty to ensure an enjoyable experience for all. Visits to the city of Oporto and neighboring towns, including architectural, cultural, and World Heritage sites were a valuable and enjoyable experience, and many participants planned to return on future occasions to see more of this beautiful country. It is difficult to describe how rich and varied interaction among participants and faculty was during the informal and formal components of the workshop, but there was no doubt that this is also another stated goal of the course that was clearly achieved, thanks to the thoughtful course planning and execution. The next modules were Evidence-Based Medicine, Critical Appraisal, Publications, Presentations, and Trial Design. In these sessions, everyone was shown tools to be able to critique the literature, present this information in a scholarly manner, and how they could potentially design studies that could be used at their institutions in the context of their local resources and skills. Again, each session was followed by small groups with relevant tasks to work on, with subsequent presentations to the whole group. As the workshop progressed, each group’s presentations markedly improved in quality. Many participants noted how rapidly everyone was able to apply the lessons learned in previous modules to good effect. Obviously a short course does not make experts of all the participants, but the nature of the sessions and tasks left no doubt in my mind that learning was taking place for all levels of learners and everyone who was seeing this for the first time was clearly motivated to learn more. The next modules of the workshop were Assessment and Appraisal and Credentialing. For the majority of the trainees, this was new material and an eye opener. Hearing how these subjects are addressed in each participant’s context was interesting to everyone and valuable discussions followed. It was clear that the WGO’s objectives to improve standards of care were shared by the participants following these sessions. Subsequent modules on Interpersonal skills and Teamwork also were highly educational, relevant, and interactive. Given that everyone had actively participated in small groups and experienced the subject matter first hand over the preceding days, these sessions were particularly meaningful. The workshop concluded with a course feedback session that closed the loop on previous discussions and allowed participants to actively reflect on the course, to see whether their learning objectives had been met and the opportunity for each learner to develop personal learning objectives going forward from the course. Following this, there was an enjoyable game-show style quiz that also served as a review session, which was highly entertaining and yet educational. In summary, this WGO TTT is an educationally sound, well-organized, and highly effective workshop that clearly meets the objectives set out by the WGO. Although its success is best judged on its future impact at the level of each learners’ local contexts, I have no doubt that from what I have seen and heard from my fellow participants, it would be very difficult to imagine a course of this length accomplishing more for such a diverse and varied group of participants. GASTRO 2013 APDW/WCOG SHANGHAI Asian Pacific Digestive Week 2013 World Congress of Gastroenterology September 21 to 24, 2013 Shanghai Expo Center, Shanghai, China IT’S NOT TOO LATE! REGISTER NOW FOR GASTRO 2013! Register now to attend Gastro 2013 APDW/WCOG Shanghai, September 21 to 24, 2013! Visit http://www.gastro2013.org to register for the Congress, book a tour, and make your hotel and transportation accommodations. FOR MORE INFORMATION Visit http://www.gastro2013.org/ for updates and complete information regarding the Congress. The Web site will be updated regularly with the most up-to-date information as it becomes available. If you would like to receive notifications regarding Gastro 2013, join our mailing list! Simply visit, http://www.gastro2013.org/, scroll to the bottom of any Gastro 2013 web page, and enter your email address in the “be added to the congress mailing list” submission box. Gastro 2013 will send you reminders as deadlines draw closer and the latest news regarding the Congress. Gastro 2013 is on Facebook and Twitter; follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook by visiting the Gastro 2013 Web site.Figure
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.016 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".