Tensions in the Field: Teaching Standards of Practice in Optometry Case Presentations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Purpose. Professional identity formation and its relationship to case presentations were studied in an optometry school's onsite clinic. Methods. Eight optometry students and six faculty optometrists were audio‐recorded during 31 oral case presentations and the teaching exchanges related to them. Using convenience sampling, interviews were audio‐recorded of four of the students and four of the optometrists from the field observations. After transcribing these audio‐recordings, the research team members applied a grounded theory method to identify, test, and revise emergent themes. The theme reported herein pertains to communicating standards of practice. Results. Faculty optometrists demonstrated three ways of communicating standards of practice to optometry students during case presentations: Official Way , Our Way , and My Way . Although there were differences between these standards, the rationale for the disparities was rarely explicitly articulated by the instructors to the students. Without this information, the incongruity among the standards was left to the students to interpret on their own. Conclusions. The risk created by faculty not articulating the rationale underlying standards of practice was that students misinterpreted the optometrists’ ways as idiosyncratic. Thus, opportunities were missed in the educational setting to assist students in making responsible decisions, locating their position in practice, and shaping their professional identity. Competing responsibilities of patient care and student education left instructors with little time to articulate rationale for standards of practice. Therefore, educators must reflect on innovative ways to bring into relief the logic behind their actions when working with novices.
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 | 0.030 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".