Clinical Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Role in Professional Identity Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A fundamental goal of medical education is supporting learners in forming a professional identity. While it is known that learners perceive clinical teachers to be critically important in this process, the latter's perspective is unknown. This study sought to understand how clinical teachers perceive their influence on the professional identity formation of learners. METHOD: In 2017, a research assistant conducted 16 semistructured interviews of clinical teachers from 8 specialties at McGill University. The research assistant audiorecorded and subsequently transcribed interviews for analysis. Following principles of qualitative description, the research team developed a coding scheme using both inductive codes (from the words of the participants) and deductive codes (based on the literature and the theory of communities of practice). Through a cross-case analysis, the team then identified salient themes. RESULTS: Participants struggled to describe their influence on learners' professional identity without first being prompted to focus on their own identity and its formation. Once prompted, clinical teachers reported viewing their personal and professional identities as integrated and believed that caring for patients was integral to forming their professional identity. They identified explicit role modeling, engaging in difficult conversations, and providing graded autonomy as ways in which they could influence the identity development of learners. However, they had difficulty discerning the magnitude of their influence. CONCLUSIONS: This study was the first to explore professional identity formation from the perspective of clinical teachers. The 2010 Carnegie Foundation report called for an increased focus on professional identity formation. Giving clinical teachers the space and guidance to reflect on this process, helping them make the implicit explicit, and supporting them in using their own experiences as learners to inform their teaching appear to be critical steps in achieving this goal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".