Learning Activity Sequence, Simulation, and Productive Failure in Anti-Harassment Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the high prevalence of harassment in health professions education, empirical investigations into effective anti-harassment interventions remain scarce. Our study examined the effectiveness of an innovative anti-harassment intervention that featured instructional videos and high-fidelity simulation training for medical residents. We drew from the knowledge-learning-instruction framework and the idea of productive failure to conceptualize our research questions and discussion. We examined how the sequence of educational activities may be linked to simulation performance and increases in knowledge levels. METHOD: Our pretest posttest study contacted all 88 eligible internal medicine residents, randomly assigning them to the intervention (n = 60) or equivalent training later (n = 28). Of those assigned to the intervention, 52 (86.6%) consented and were further randomized to a video-first or simulation-first group. We provided educational activities in different sequences accordingly. We assessed knowledge via a questionnaire, and simulation performance via a performance checklist. RESULTS: The video-first group demonstrated significantly better initial simulation performance compared with the simulation-first group, aligning with traditional learning sequential benefits. Both groups showed significant postintervention knowledge gains. Notably, the simulation-first group, despite starting with lower performance, ended with significantly higher knowledge levels than the video-first group, suggesting the efficacy of the productive failure approach in fostering deeper learning. CONCLUSIONS: The sequence of educational activities may impact the effectiveness of anti-harassment training. The video-first approach enhances immediate performance, while the simulation-first approach fosters better knowledge retention. Further research should investigate the long-term effects of such educational strategies and their applicability in diverse healthcare settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".