On-site Observational Learning in Faculty Development: Impact of an International Program on Clinical Teaching in Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Local faculty development programs may not suffice for physicians to learn about global standards in clinical teaching. This report describes the evaluation of a 1-week international faculty development program in Canada, incorporating on-site observations of clinical teaching with guided reflection, for Japanese clinical teachers. Participants' perceptions of learning processes and outcomes are described. METHODS: Twenty-nine Japanese clinical teachers from 9 different teaching hospitals located in the Gifu province participated in this program from 2014 to 2017. The program evaluation consisted of end-of-program reflection reports and semistructured interviews conducted 3 months after the visit, which were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Three themes related to learning processes emerged: the benefits of observing clinical teaching in a familiar specialty but unfamiliar context; the value of reflection in linking previous experiences with observations; and the role of group interaction and verbalization in creating a sense of community. Three additional themes related to learning outcomes emerged: enhanced knowledge about teaching, with a renewed emphasis on the value of learner respect and trust; increased confidence in teaching competence; and a sense of frustration related to difficulty in changing the status quo. DISCUSSION: An international faculty development program incorporating on-site observational learning in hospital settings with guided reflections can be effective in learning about clinical teaching; follow-up activities in the home country are also recommended. The key elements of this program, including international experiences, on-site observational learning, and guided reflections, should be considered more frequently in faculty development programs in medicine.
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 | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".