Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Developing an understanding of the signature pedagogies in athletic therapy education may help to promote greater pedagogical development opportunities and encourage meaningful reflection for educators. Objective To gain an understanding of the perceived level of pedagogical knowledge in Canadian athletic therapy educators and how they developed such knowledge. Design Sequential explanatory mixed-methods. Setting Seven undergraduate Canadian Athletic Therapists Association–accredited institutions Patients or Other Participants Twenty-one athletic therapy educators (16 women, 5 men) responded to the initial questionnaire; 15 athletic therapy educators (11 women, 4 men) participated in individual phone interviews. Main Outcome Measure(s) An initial questionnaire was designed to explore general pedagogical knowledge in athletic therapy educators and how familiar participants were with different teaching strategies. Emergent trends from these questionnaires were used to design a specific interview schedule. Phone interviews further explored the institutional, personal, student, and cultural factors that affected the selection of different pedagogical approaches. Findings from the questionnaires and interviews were combined to identify participants' pedagogical approaches to teaching in an athletic therapy setting. Results A pedagogical distinction was observed, dividing the sample into 2 groups. One group used a traditional, passive lecturing format, and the other, more innovative pedagogies. Educators who followed traditional teaching practices were less likely to know about different pedagogies or understand how these strategies could contribute to more effective instruction. The other group of educators appreciated the use of different pedagogies and explained how different teaching strategies could be incorporated to enhance learning in the athletic therapy curriculum. Conclusions On the basis of these findings, Canadian athletic therapy educators would benefit from more formalized pedagogical training and/or development. These formalized opportunities could familiarize educators with innovative pedagogical strategies while also preparing them with the necessary skills required to self-evaluate their own teaching approaches.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".