La Scuola di Specializzazione in Radioterapia e il Tirocinio di Scienze della Formazione Primaria. Percorsi di educazione alle competenze a confronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pedagogical reflection is called upon to think and plan working practices and training paths for the different target figures. This contribution aims to focus, in an evidently exploratory and hermeneutic way, on a possible comparison between two training courses in which I am involved to make a pedagogical contribution, the School of Specialization in Radiotherapy of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart - Rome) and the Internship of the Degree Course in Primary Education Sciences (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart - Brescia). On the one hand, the School of Specialization has implemented, especially through the “Form-ART-zione” project, the so-called 'CanMEDS' proposal (published by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada), whose inspiration has been accepted in the documents ESTRO (The European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology); on the other hand, the internship path has adopted the INDIRE perspective, in particular with respect to the year of training and testing for newly hired teachers, which explicitly mentions the "Ten new skills for teaching", a well-known text by P. Perrenoud . These are certainly two different training paths, one for future radiation oncologists and the other for future teachers, which however both seem to be supported by the choice of theoretical references in favor of the development of skills. Beyond the obvious differences with respect to the job figure to which they refer, both heuristic perspectives stand out as characterized by an orientation intentionally oriented towards overcoming notions and passivity in teaching/learning dynamics. Even though they come from distant traditions and epistemologies, and even though they propose well-defined and different aspects of competence, the choice - in both cases - to favor competences lays the foundations for a dialogue from a pedagogical point of view. Without any claim to exhaustiveness, are there metatheoretical aspects to start a possible exchange of experiences and reflections? Can we glimpse areas of competence that can be transferred between the two different training paths? Faced with two such complex professions and so urgently called to update themselves and accept the challenges of change (cognitive, cultural, social, technological), the learning of skills appears necessary, binding, to the extent that such learning is consciously designed and oriented in a pedagogical sense, for integral human development. Professionalizing educational systems that can dialogue in the orientation towards competent, humanly enriching, inclusive, sustainable jobs, in the name of existential authenticity.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".