‘It's not the form; it's the process’: a phenomenological study on the use of creative professional development workshops to improve teamwork and communication skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Past research has demonstrated the positive effects of visual and performing arts on health professionals' observational acuity and associated diagnostic skills, well-being and professional identity. However, to date, the use of arts for the development of non-technical skills, such as teamwork and communication, has not been studied thoroughly. METHODS: In partnership with a community print and media arts organisation, Centre[3], we used a phenomenological approach to explore front-line mental health and social service workers' experiences with a creative professional development workshop based on the visual and performing arts. Through preworkshop and postworkshop interviews with participants and postworkshop interviews with their managers, we sought to examine how participants' perceptions of the workshop compared with their preworkshop expectations, specific impacts of the workshop with respect to participants' teamwork and communication skills and changes in their perceptions regarding the use of the arts in professional development. RESULTS: Our workshops were successful in enhancing teamwork skills among participants and showed promise in the development of communication skills, though observable changes in workplace communication could not be confirmed. The workshop facilitated teamwork and collegiality between colleagues, creating a more enjoyable and accepting work environment. The workshops also helped participants identify the strengths and weaknesses of their communication skills, made them more comfortable with different communication styles and provided them with strategies to enhance their communication skills. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the arts can be beneficial for the development of interpersonal skills such as teamwork and communication among health professionals.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".