Understanding Professional Identity Formation in Early Clerkship: A Novel Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Medical educators should foster students' professional attitudes because individuals are more likely to act in accordance with medicine's professional values if these values have been internalized. Still, there is much to be learned about how students examine and negotiate their emerging identities. This study examined third-year medical students' experiences of professional identity formation (PIF) during clinical clerkship. METHOD: The authors relied on an interpretivist perspective, informed by a grounded theory approach, to analyze data, which were collected from a pilot course designed to support medical students' efforts to "unhide" the hidden curriculum in relation to their development as medical students and emerging professionals. RESULTS: Twelve third-year medical students engaged in 10 collaborative discussions with 3 faculty members, a resident, and a fourth-year student (2015-2016). Discussions facilitated students' reflection on their professional journeys. Analysis of transcribed discussions resulted in a conceptual framework useful for exploring and understanding students' reflections on their PIF. Through analyzing students' experiences, the authors identified 4 components that constituted PIF stories: context, focus, catalyst, process. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis resulted in the development of a conceptual framework and distinct identity formation themes. Discrete reflections focused on either students' current identity (being) or their sense of future self (becoming). The study identified catalysts that sparked participants' introspection about, or their processing of, identity. The moments that generate profound feelings of awareness in students are often moments that would not be recognizable (even post hoc) as remarkable by others.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".