A study of the impact of a resident teacher education program on teaching self-efficacy, beliefs about teaching, and self-reported teaching behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the fact that few residents have any specific training in teaching skills, the majority of them have significant teaching responsibilities throughout their residencies. Although residents have a positive attitude towards teaching, and look forward to their teaching role, a number of observational studies have found that few residents exhibit teaching skills conducive to learning. This research study reports the development, implementation, and evaluation of a resident Teacher Education Program (TEP), and examines its impact on internal medicine residents, more specifically, on residents’ (1) sense of teaching self-efficacy, (2) self reported teaching behaviours, (3) beliefs about teaching, and (4) interest in teaching. A quasi-experimental design was used and assignment of subjects (i.e., residents) was based on the existing Clinical Teaching Unit (CTU) rotation schedule. Theoretical guidelines for program development were based on several perspectives of adult education, and psychology. Most importantly, teaching self-efficacy was used as a motivational paradigm (Ashton, 1984), and was used as the main outcomes measure. The treatment group (n= 11) attended weekly one hour seminars longitudinally over the course of their CTU rotation (for a total of six sessions). The program was run a total of three times over the course of three rotations. General internal medicine residents had a positive outcome expectancy for teaching (i.e., teaching efficacy subscale). However, their efficacy beliefs concerning their own abilities as teachers was not rated as highly (self-efficacy subscale). Overall, residents had a positive attitude towards teaching. The resident TEP had no effect on residents’ teaching efficacy beliefs which were already positive. It did, however, have a statistically significant effect on their teaching self-efficacy scores which was twice that seen in the control group (0.4 vs. 0.2). A significant pre- and- post difference was found for 5 of 15 questions on beliefs about teaching (vs. 1 of 15 for the control group), and for 2 of 4 questions on interest in teaching (vs. 0 for control group). Residents participating in the TEP had a large and statistically significant improvement in self-reported teaching behaviours scores (vs. no difference in control group). A correlation coefficient of 0.21 was found for the associated changes between teaching efficacy and self-reported teaching behaviours. A correlation coefficient of 0.66 was found for the associated changes between teaching self-efficacy and self-reported teaching behaviours.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".