Strengthening Professional Collaboration and Expertise: Implementing and Sustaining a Hospital School Community of Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This practice-based intervention paper describes the design and implementation of a Community of Practice (CoP) intervention for hospital school professionals across three hospital sites in Saskatchewan, Canada. The intervention consisted of four structured sessions per academic year, two mandatory and two optional, offered during school division professional development days. Each session included facilitated dialogue, guest speakers, collaborative planning, and resource sharing tailored to the realities of hospital-based and inclusive education. Structured using Wenger's theory of social learning and reported following the GREET (Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice educational interventions and Teaching) framework, the CoP was conducted from September 2016 through June 2021. It involved elementary and secondary teachers from hospital schools, complex needs programs, mainstream schools, and student teachers, totaling between 7 and 11 participants annually. The intervention aimed to address the unique professional development needs of hospital teachers, mitigate professional isolation, enhance interdisciplinary collaboration, and support evidence-informed practices tailored to students aged 5-17 with complex medical and mental health needs. Data were collected through attendance records, facilitator notes, participant feedback, and reflective forms. Analysis employed a thematic approach using deductive alignment with predefined learning objectives and inductive methods to identify themes. Results indicated the CoP effectively fostered relational trust, professional renewal, adaptable resource co-creation, and sustained engagement despite systemic and bureaucratic constraints. Knowledge translation efforts included podcast interviews, conference presentations, and field trips to showcase and disseminate the CoP model. Recommendations include integrating robust evaluation frameworks at the intervention outset. This intervention provides valuable insights for replicating CoP models, the intervention, within similar interdisciplinary education-healthcare contexts.
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 | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".