Evaluation of a Teaching Workshop for Residents at the University of Saskatchewan: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine in Saskatoon, Canada, has been running a two-day workshop for teachers since 1993 to which both faculty and residents had been invited. Although the design of the workshop is consistent with principles of adult learning, it was important to determine if the workshop effectively helped residents to acquire and then use key teaching skills in real-world situations where they were called on to organize and make presentations. METHOD: This study, conducted in 1998 and 1999 with residents only, used a randomized controlled experiment with third-party ratings of before and after videotaped teaching sessions done in actual performance settings. There were eight residents each in the control and intervention groups. RESULTS: The intervention group made statistically significant and positive changes in two key areas taught in the workshop and showed slight improvement in a third. The changes made by the residents in the intervention group were in presenting the opening "set" (41.4% absolute improvement) and the use of instructional objectives (11.5%). The "body" of their teaching sessions increased slightly (9.3%). The control group held relatively stable. CONCLUSION: While this study demonstrates that the workshop likely made a difference in the teaching performance of the intervention group, the small sample size (eight in each group) and the presence of confounding variables suggest that further research should be conducted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".