Residents’ Views of the Role of Classroom-Based Learning in Graduate Medical Education Through the Lens of Academic Half Days
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the role of classroom-based learning in graduate medical education through the lens of academic half days (AHDs) by exploring residents' perceptions of AHDs' purpose and relevance and the effectiveness of teaching and learning in AHDs. METHOD: The authors invited a total of 186 residents in three programs (internal medicine, orthopedic surgery, and hematology) at the University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine to participate in semistructured focus groups from October 2010 to February 2011. Verbatim transcripts of the interviews underwent inductive analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven residents across the three programs volunteered to participate. Two major findings emerged. Purpose and relevance of AHDs: Residents believed that AHDs are primarily for knowledge acquisition and should complement clinical learning. Classroom learning facilitated consolidation of clinical experiences with expert clinical reasoning. Social aspects of AHDs were highly valued as an important secondary purpose. Perceived effectiveness of teaching and learning: Case-based teaching engaged residents in critical thinking; active learning was valued. Knowledge retention was considered suboptimal. Perspectives on the concept of AHDs as "protected time" varied in the three programs. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that (1) engagement in classroom learning occurs through participation in clinically oriented discussions that highlight expert reasoning processes; (2) formal classroom teaching, which focuses on knowledge acquisition, can enhance informal learning occurring during clinical activity; and (3) social aspects of AHDs, including their role in creating communities of practice in residency programs and in professional identity formation, are an important, underappreciated asset for residency programs.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".