A novel resident-as-teacher curriculum: the role of experiential learning and coaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background: Canadian family medicine residency programs have the challenge of training in a wide breadth of topics and competencies within a two-year program, including training residents to be effective teachers. There has been a gap in knowledge with regards to the most effective method to train residents to teach. We developed, implemented, and evaluated a novel multi-level resident-as-teacher (RAT) coaching curriculum to provide training and authentic experiences for family medicine residents in teaching medical students. Methods: A curriculum centred around multi-level coaching was designed where family medicine faculty members directly observed and provided feedback to family medicine residents teaching small group clinical skills to first and second year medical students. Family medicine residents received didactic training on how to provide effective feedback to students and manage small group dynamics, after reviewing the learning objectives that students were to achieve. This was followed by the authentic small group teaching experiences. A survey was sent out by email to all residents and faculty members who had participated in the RAT curriculum at the end of the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 academic years. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, correlation coefficients (Spearman's rho)). Qualitative analysis was completed through thematic analysis of respondents' written comments to open-ended survey questions. Results: 80% of 127 residents strongly agreed (26%) or agreed (54%) that the RAT program effectively developed their teaching skills. 57% either strongly agreed (17%) or agreed (40%) that the direct observation and feedback from faculty coaches helped to improve their teaching skills. There was a significant positive correlation between residents' perceptions of the usefulness of the feedback from faculty coaches and residents' perceptions of the overall RAT program's effectiveness in developing their teaching skills (r=0.42; p=0.001).Qualitative analysis revealed that residents perceived the RAT program to have solidified their own knowledge base for the content covered in the sessions. Residents also perceived a benefit of near-peer teaching for the medical students and an elevated family physicians' profile as teachers. They found the active learning experience increased their self-awareness of their teaching skills. Time away from clinical rotations and preparation time were derived as a potential drawback of the program.All faculty coaches agreed or strongly agreed that the RAT curriculum improved the teaching skills of family medicine residents. Thematic analysis of the faculty coaches' comments revealed that participating as coaches allowed for their own professional development in that their feedback and coaching skills improved. Conclusions: Our experiences and program evaluation of a novel multi-level resident-as-teacher coaching curriculum show that direct observation with feedback of authentic teaching activities is highly valued, and appears to be effective in developing resident teaching skills while fostering interest in future teaching.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".