THE DEVELOPMENTAL TOOLKIT: A PLAY-BASED LEARNING TOOL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Learning child development is complex. Recent paediatric and family medicine graduates reported feeling unprepared to identify and manage children with developmental and behavioural concerns (Comley et al 2008). As part of current developmental education at our centre, residents are trained to assess child development by integrating their pre-rotation knowledge about development with parental report and a general physical examination. This approach lacks hands-on training required to understand and learn the complexities of child development. To address this gap, our study team created the “Developmental Toolkit (Toolkit),” a non-standardized developmental teaching tool comprising specific toys and activities. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this study was to explore how the toolkit may influence the teaching and learning of child development. Through the lens of reflective practice, this study sought to also explore residents’ learning of development in the context of a play-based toolkit. DESIGN/METHODS Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, paediatric and family medicine residents from two academic centres were interviewed after they used the toolkit as part of their interactions. Physician supervisors were also interviewed to determine the use of the toolkit as a teaching tool. RESULTS We recruited 10 residents to ensure saturation of data. Residents felt positively about their experience with the toolkit and its ease of use. They all agreed the toolkit enabled them to assess a child’s developmental skills in a short period of time. One paediatric resident found it “really useful; it was a more objective way for me to see what skills and milestones they [the child] were at. I think it was quite useful to correlate it with what mom was saying.” The residents’ supervisors all felt the toolkit allowed residents to more critically consider a child’s development and diagnosis in the context of the child’s environment. Furthermore, through the lens of reflective practice,the use of the toolkit revealed additional competencies in child development. These included: 1) maintaining a positive mood with the child; 2) getting a sense of the parent’s mood; 3) identifying when a child may have reached their limits during an interaction; and 4) critiquing previous assumptions about child development. CONCLUSION The toolkit is an innovative tool that may enhance paediatric and family medicine residents’ understanding of child development by enabling hands-on interactions and observations with children. Further exploration of how the toolkit may be enabling reflective practice and its implications on adaptive expertise need to be explored.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".