BERST Academy Poster - 2019

BERST Academy (Baystate Education Research and Scholarship of Teaching) Poster 2019https://scholarlycommons.libraryinfo.bhs.org/research_education/1001/thumbnail.jp

Connecting Mixed Methods as an Education Research Strategy

Description This faculty and professional development instructional module is intended for medical education researchers seeking to combine qualitative and quantitative research methods. The module is particularly useful when investigating a particular phenomenon or challenging educational practice. The case-based methods guide workshop participants through an interactive, small group plan of action on a relevant research topic. The team-building activity, although representative, may be easily modified for site-specific education research needs. We recommend incorporating this instructional module during the initial phases of an organizational strategic plan in education research among inter-professional healthcare providers. This process includes a worksheet for designing a research project or study. A post-activity debriefing reinforces strategies to overcome barriers or challenges in education research design that incorporate elements of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The instructional module concludes with practical considerations in implementing mixed methods from the relevant medical education literature. The enclosed Resource Files provide professional development facilitators with a ‘turn-key’ approach when organizing and conducting a mixed methods education research workshop. Therefore, we offer goals and strategies for effective mixed methods research that are attainable through educational development. Purpose of resources Both quantitative and qualitative research methods yield valuable data for investigating a phenomenon or challenging educational practice. Just as physicians gather both qualitative and quantitative data on their patients,1 so too can research projects benefit from combining these methods. Yet researchers might not be familiar with the process of combining methods into a cohesive mixed-methods study to more explicitly understand education practices and outcomes. Schifferdecker’s workshop on mixed methods in education research introduced learners to the topic through lecture and small group discussion.2 Our workshop adds to the content in her workshop, yet emphasizes an innovative, experiential activity, which encourages participants to discover the challenges and opportunities associated with mixed-method research. This workshop was created to tap into participants’ knowledge of educational research design by conceptualizing and challenging their understanding of the benefits of mixed methods. The activity harnesses and extends participant knowledge by encouraging small group discussion and facilitator-led debriefing to highlight key points. Background (why and how created) This instructional module was initially conceived and implemented in a peer-reviewed session at the recent AAMC NEGEA annual conference on medical education research with 20 academic health center leaders. Session outcome measures (Pre-Post participant rating factors) revealed increased knowledge and self-efficacy by participants

Experiences of Health Professions Educators Utilizing Multiple Institutional Review Boards for Collaborative Research

Introduction: This study describes the experiences and perspectives of health professions educators around institutional review board (IRB) review of multi-institutional education research. Method: This survey study gathered quantitative and qualitative data from members of three of the four geographic regions of the AAMC Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) as well as a snowball sample from the fourth region, where access to the listserv was not possible. Quantitative data is described and qualitative comments were coded and themed. Results: Ninety-six percent of the 151 respondents considered multi-institutional incredibly or somewhat valuable to their educational research goals. Sixty-two percent had submitted at least one project to multiple institutions for review. Of 57 respondents, 21 identified disagreements in the type of IRB review required (exempt, expedited, or full-board review). Disagreements between IRBs are also reported, including changes in wording or informed consent procedures. Of the 36 participants who noted disagreement between IRBs for any changes, only three participants believed that the process significantly improved the research subject protections. Discussion: Most health professions education researchers across the USA and Canada appreciated the value and role of IRB review and expressed frustration in the face of review that seemingly did not result in meaningful improvements. Final changes to the federal Common Rule call for a single-IRB review in multi-institutional research, particularly for low-risk studies. This change on the horizon could not only mitigate current concerns but also bolster the proliferation of multi-institutional research studies in health professions education

Critical Synthesis Package: Scale of Emotional Arousability (SEA)

This Critical Synthesis Package contains 1) a Critical Analysis of psychometric properties and application to health sciences research of the Scale of Emotional Arousability (SEA)and 2) a copy of the SEA developed by Valerie Braithwaite, PhD. The SEA is a self-administered scale of emotionality. The 15-items of the SEA support four subscales; General emotionality (6 items), Anger (3 items), Timidity (3 items), and Lack of control (3 items). Nine of the 15 items are reverse coded. Respondents answer items on a 5-point Likert scale with response options ranging from (1) very unlike me to (5) very like me, and the neutral response is (3) I am not sure. Scores can range from 15-75, where higher scores indicate a higher level of emotional arousal. While the primary target population for the SEA was not specifically identified, development and validation studies focus on adults (age \u3e 18) in the general population

From the coliseum to the convention centre: a reflection on the current state of medical education conferences and conference-goers

The advancement of knowledge and development of policy in the field of medical education require critical academic discourse among the most intelligent medical educators; and critical academic discourse requires coffee. In this essay, we reflect on the state of professional development conferences in the field of medical education and the rituals that surround their success. Having begun in ancient Greece, symposia were ripe with debauchery. Today, sedated by the light brown walls of hotel conference centres, symposia are more serious endeavours, engaging men and women in the sometimes turbulent waters of epistemological debate. The abstract submission process (summed up by: \u27Yay! It was accepted for presentation\u27 [Deep breath] \u27Oh no…it was accepted for presentation\u27), the \u27juggling act\u27 of parent attendees, the acting prowess of abstract presenters and the unapologetic approach to buffet eating are all by-products of the collision of true intellects among medical education scholars. We hold these rituals in high regard and argue that they are required to advance the field of medical education. These rituals bind the walls supporting true progressive thought and innovative research, all fuelled by the glass of wine purchased with that one coveted drink ticket

AM last page: A snapshot of three common program evaluation approaches for medical education

No abstract

Applying Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks to Health Professions Education Research: An Introductory Workshop

Introduction: Literature suggests that the quality and rigor of health professions education (HPE) research can be elevated if the research is anchored in existing theories and frameworks. This critical skill is difficult for novice researchers to master. We created a workshop to introduce the practical application of theories and frameworks to HPE research. Methods: We conducted two 60- to 75-minute workshops, one in 2019 at an in-person national conference and another in 2021 during an online national education conference. After a brief role-play introduction, participants applied a relevant theory to a case scenario in small groups, led by facilitators with expertise in HPE research. The workshop concluded with a presentation on applying the lessons learned when preparing a scholarly manuscript. We conducted a postworkshop survey to measure self-reported achievement of objectives. Results: Fifty-five individuals participated in the in-person workshop, and approximately 150 people completed the online workshop. Sixty participants (30%) completed the postworkshop survey across both workshops. As a result of participating in the workshop, 80% of participants (32) indicated they could distinguish between frameworks and theories, and 86% (32) could apply a conceptual or theoretical framework to a research question. Strengths of the workshop included the small-group activity, access to expert facilitators, and the materials provided. Discussion: The workshop has been well received by participants and fills a gap in the existing resources available to HPE researchers and mentors. It can be replicated in multiple settings to model the application of conceptual and theoretical frameworks to HPE research. Keywords: Conceptual Framework; Continuing Professional Development; Faculty Development; Publishing/Scholarship; Theoretical Framework; Theory