Centered on learning, but is it learner centered?: Paediatric resident perspectives on competency‐based medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Like other Canadian specialty postgraduate training programmes, paediatrics recently transitioned to a competency-based medical education (CBME) platform. This programme, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada's Competence By Design (CBD), is espoused as learner-centered. However, resident voices were underrepresented in CBD's creation, and there are emerging concerns that its practical implementation may have unintended effects on this population. We sought to understand how CBD has affected the educational experiences of paediatric residents, with the goal of leveraging their insights to further strengthen this training model. METHODS: Our qualitative instrumental single case study explored the perspectives of paediatric residents who began training in the inaugural CBD cohort in 2021. We conducted semi-structured interviews with fourteen residents during their third year (August 2023-February 2024) in two Canadian programmes. We constructed themes from this data set using reflexive, inductive thematic analysis, looking for regularities that transcended the particularities of the training context. RESULTS: Our results suggest that residents agree with CBD's espoused purpose, yet feel that its day-to-day implementation has impacted them in four key ways: 1) the onus of responsibility and administrative burden falls to residents; 2) entrustable professional activities generate variable feedback; 3) CBD is less assessment for learning more assessment of learning; and 4) staff physicians have struggled to embrace CBD. DISCUSSION: Our findings align with concerns raised in other specialties, opening up questions as to why a learner-centered system may be having deleterious effects on its residents. We suggest that if the field is to fully unlock the potential that CBME systems hold, it is necessary to engage productively with resident critiques and to more deeply consider the effects that its historical and ideological aspects-such as its desire to materially demonstrate the acquisition of learner competence as well as a neoliberal orientation-have on CBME's contemporary design and delivery.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".