47. Evaluation of new implementation strategies, program effectiveness and dissemination of new pedagogical knowledge: Centre for faculty development's stepping stones teaching certificate program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This evaluation of the integrated Stepping Stones (SS) Teaching Certificate program, including its instructional development (workshops) and theory review (journal club) components, will inform further program development. Results of this project will also add to the limited amount of scholarly work in the area of faculty development program evaluation. Faculty development literature in the area of organized program assessment reveals use of either quantitative OR qualitative methods. In this project, a novel method combining both techniques was used to explore program impact. Participants completed 2 questionnaires to identify skill-set knowledge gaps in teaching effectiveness. Pre- and post-program quantitative gaps were generated. Focus groups were used for qualitative exploration. Areas explored pre-program included: a) motives for enrollment, b) program expectations and c) prior teaching preparation. Post-program discussion explored: the impact of the program on a) participant’s perceived gaps, b) teaching behaviour change, and c) its influence on their career in education. We believed the program’s interprofessional environment would foster development of a learning community having impact on faculty knowledge, skills and attitudes related to teaching, and potentially elicit behavioural change in teaching practices. Results from a 2004-2005 cohort of participants have identified a variety of benefits for faculty and their teaching practice. Results from a second separate cohort, 2005-2006 participants, validated the initial findings. Remarkable harmonization in the results of the qualitative analysis between the two cohort samples was evident. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in each of the domains examined qualitatively. Both qualitative and quantitatively, program effectiveness was demonstrated immediately following completion of the program. Follow up to assess the sustainability of the effects is ongoing. The analysis of the quantitative discrepancy (gaps) data has lead to a possible technique to assist in identifying unperceived educational needs. McLeod PJ, Steinert Y, Nasmith L, Conochie L. Faculty Development in Canadian medical schools: a 10-year update. CMAJ 1997; 156(10):1419-23. Hewson MG, Copeland HL, Fishleder AJ. What’s the use of faculty development? Program evaluation using retrospective self-assessments and independent performance ratings. Teach Learn Med 2001; 13(3):153-60. Moore EM. A Framework for Outcomes Evaluation in the Continuing Development of Physicians, in: The Continuing Professional Development of Physicians. Eds. Davis D, Barnes BE, Fox R. AMA Press, 2003.
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 | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".