Evaluation of a public service Coaching Summit as an organisational professional development activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This article outlines the key findings of an evaluation of a Coaching Summit, which took place as a professional development activity in the public service of a province in Western Canada. The summit provided a combination of coaching learning opportunities through formal presentations and facilitated experiential exercises, with direct experiences of coaching practice focused on specific areas of focus relevant to public service work. Methods: Borton’s (1970) framework guiding reflective activities was used to develop a ‘what – so what – now what?’ approach to reflective activities used in evaluating the summit. This was used to develop questionnaires, which included five-item Likert scales, which were completed for all presentations and activities. Qualitative data were collected confidentially through open-ended comment sections on the questionnaires, and on a large wall mural. Results: The findings show that the summit was an effective approach to employee engagement for participants, introducing the practice of coaching through experiential professional development, and providing a positive impact on work through tools and ideas for improving team functioning. Discussion: The findings were consistent with coaching research with public service employees in other jurisdictions, in particular, the role of coaching in developing trust within the organisation. Limitations include the self-selected nature of the participants who attended the summit and those who provided written evaluations. Conclusion: The Coaching Summit format is a promising approach to engaging employees in a large public service organisation and can provide coaching-oriented professional development opportunities to a large number of employees in a relatively intimate setting.
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 | 0.035 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".