The impact of Codevelopment Action Learning participation on facilitators’ skills and development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action Learning (AL) is widely used to address complex challenges while building collaboration and leadership. Codevelopment Action Learning (CAL), a structured Canadian variant of AL, has been shown to benefit participants by strengthening self-efficacy, professional identity, and transversal skills. However, little is known about its impact on facilitators, even though they are key to sustaining group learning. Most writings assume that facilitation skills must be mastered before practice, overlooking the possibility that they may evolve during facilitation itself. This study investigates the development of facilitation skills among 58 new CAL facilitators from 15 organizations, who collectively led 263 sessions between 2017 and 2021. Using qualitative content analysis of post-session questionnaires, the study identified significant learning outcomes across CAL’s four facilitation functions and specific behaviors, including questioning, feedback, active listening, and emotional support. Facilitators also reported varied learning outcomes related to the topics discussed by participants, such as knowledge of organizational contexts, professional roles, and shared experiences. The findings challenge assumptions that facilitators enter fully equipped for their role, showing instead that facilitation skills and broader learning deepen progressively through practice. This empirical evidence extends the AL literature and informs facilitator training by emphasizing targeted development alongside experiential learning.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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 it