Education Scholarship and its Impact on Emergency Medicine Education

Educating the Educator: Evaluation and Review of the ADMSEP Education Scholars Program

OBJECTIVE

This report examines the first 8 years of the Association of Directors of Medical Student Education in Psychiatry (ADMSEP) Education Scholars Program (ESP) to determine the impact of the program on alumni careers and scholarship and their reception of the ESP. The 2-year longitudinal professional development program, launched in 2012, provides foundational knowledge to improve scholarship skills for faculty in psychiatry medical student education. The program is unique among national faculty development programs for psychiatry medical educators in its focus on scholarship and its requirement of completion of a research project in medical education..

METHODS

All 19 graduates of the program were sent a 30-question survey that explored alumni perceptions of the impact of the program on their confidence to engage in educational scholarship and on their careers. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were used to examine responses to the multiple choice and open-ended questions. A PubMed search was used to ascertain papers published by alumni since completion of the program.

RESULTS

Graduate survey responses indicated a high level of satisfaction with the key elements of the program. Alumni respondents reported positive perceptions of participation in the program on their careers as well as on their interest, confidence, knowledge, and skills to engage in scholarship. Nine alumni have had scholarly work published since completion of the program.

CONCLUSIONS

The ADMSEP ESP was highly valued by participants. It fills an important need for faculty in psychiatry medical student education by providing a national professional development program focused on scholarship.

Curated Collections for Educators: Five Key Papers on Evaluating Digital Scholarship

Traditionally, scholarship that was recognized for promotion and tenure consisted of clinical research, bench research, and grant funding. Recent trends have allowed for differing approaches to scholarship, including digital publication. As increasing numbers of trainees and faculty turn to online educational resources, it is imperative to critically evaluate these resources. This article summarizes five key papers that address the appraisal of digital scholarship and describes their relevance to junior clinician educators and faculty developers. In May 2017, the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Faculty Incubator program focused on the topic of digital scholarship, providing and discussing papers relevant to the topic. We augmented this list of papers with further suggestions by guest experts and by an open call via Twitter for other important papers. Through this process, we created a list of 38 papers in total on the topic of evaluating digital scholarship. In order to determine which of these papers best describe how to evaluate digital scholarship, the authorship group assessed the papers using a modified Delphi approach to build consensus. In this paper we present the five most highly rated papers from our process about evaluating digital scholarship. We summarize each paper and discuss its specific relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers. These papers provide a framework for assessing the quality of digital scholarship, so that junior faculty can recommend high-quality educational resources to their trainees. These papers help guide educators on how to produce high quality digital scholarship and maximize recognition and credit in respect to receiving promotion and tenure.

The View From the Top: Academic Emergency Department Chairs' Perspectives on Education Scholarship

Education scholarship continues to grow within emergency medicine (EM) and in academic medicine in general. Despite a growing interest, would-be education scholars often struggle to find adequate mentorship, research training, funding, and protected time to produce rigorous scholarship. The ways in which individual academic EM departments can support this mission remains an area in need of description.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to describe academic EM department chairs' perceptions of education scholarship and facilitators and barriers to producing high-quality education scholarship.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using a grounded theory-derived approach. Participants were solicited directly, and semistructured interviews were conducted via telephone. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed by three study investigators using a coding matrix. Discrepancies in coding were resolved via in depth discussion.

RESULTS

We interviewed seven EM chairs from academic departments throughout North America (six in geographically diverse regions of the United States and one in western Canada). Chairs described education scholarship as lacking clearly defined and measurable outcomes, as well as methodologic rigor. They identified that education faculty within their departments need training and incentives to pursue scholarly work in a system that primarily expects teaching from educators. Chairs acknowledged a lack of access to education research expertise and mentorship within their own departments, but identified potential resources within their local medical schools and universities. They also voiced willingness to support career development opportunities and scholarly work among faculty seeking to perform education research.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic EM chairs endorse a need for methodologic training, mentorship, and access to expertise specific to education scholarship. While such resources are often rare within academic EM departments, they may exist within local universities and schools of medicine. Academic EM chairs described themselves as willing and able to support faculty who wish to pursue this type of work.

A writer’s guide to education scholarship: Quantitative methodologies for medical education research (part 1)

Background

Quantitative research is one of the many research methods used to help educators advance their understanding of questions in medical education. However, little research has been done on how to succeed in publishing in this area.

Objective

We conducted a scoping review to identify key recommendations and reporting guidelines for quantitative educational research and scholarship.

Methods

Medline, ERIC, and Google Scholar were searched for English-language articles published between 2006 and January 2016 using the search terms, “research design,” “quantitative,” “quantitative methods,” and “medical education.” A hand search was completed for additional references during the full-text review. Titles/abstracts were reviewed by two authors (BT, PC) and included if they focused on quantitative research in medical education and outlined reporting guidelines, or provided recommendations on conducting quantitative research. One hundred articles were reviewed in parallel with the first 30 used for calibration and the subsequent 70 to calculate Cohen’s kappa coefficient. Two reviewers (BT, PC) conducted a full text review and extracted recommendations and reporting guidelines. A simple thematic analysis summarized the extracted recommendations.

Results

Sixty-one articles were reviewed in full, and 157 recommendations were extracted. The thematic analysis identified 86 items, 14 categories, and 3 themes. Fourteen quality evaluation tools and reporting guidelines were found.

Discussion

This paper provides guidance for junior researchers in the form of key quality markers and reporting guidelines. We hope that quantitative researchers in medical education will be informed by the results and that further work will be done to refine the list of recommendations.

Social media, FOAMed in medical education and knowledge sharing: Local experiences with international perspective

Social media, through the Internet and other web-based technologies, have become a means of communication and knowledge-sharing. In this article, we provide details about the social media traffic of various scientific activities, the organizations of which we have played an active role in. We also provide information in our native language through our FOAMed website, which has been published for about 30 months, with us acting as editors. We are comparing these local and limited ventures with examples from the world and aim to remind that social media sources play a very important role in sharing knowledge in medical training and encouraging local initiatives, like ours, with limited resources.

Publishing Venues for Education Scholarship: A Needs Assessment

OBJECTIVES

Education research is a developing field. It is unknown if there are adequate venues for scholarship distribution. The objectives of this study were to identify types of education scholarship produced, where this type of scholarship is published, barriers to achieving publication for education scholarship, and perceptions of adequacy of publication venues.

METHODS

Study participants were emergency medicine (EM) education and academic leaders who completed an online survey consisting of multiple-choice, completion, and 10-point Likert scale items.

RESULTS

A total of 45 of 59 (76.3%) subjects completed the survey. A total of 33 of 45 (73.3%) respondents had published education scholarship. Most (29/44, 65.9%) felt that there were inadequate venues for publishing education scholarship. Of those who publish education scholarship, most (30/33; 90.9%) publish either less than one or one to two peer-reviewed products per year, but collaborate with others more frequently (less than one per year, 7/33, 21.2%; one or two per year, 17/33, 51.5%; three or four per year, 7/33, 21.2%; five or more per year, 2/33, 6.1%). The most frequently published scholarship were curricular innovations and original research, with mean ratings of 5.61 and 5.21, respectively, on a 10-point Likert scale. Peer-reviewed print journal was the most frequently utilized venue, with a mean rating of 6.21. Other venues (mean rating) include peer-reviewed online journal (4.0), MedEd Portal (3.58), free open-access education (3.47), newsletter (3.0), and curricular toolbox (2.55). The most common rejection reason was "not suitable for this journal/venue," with a mean rating of 5.33. Other reasons include research methodology (4.07), small sample size (4.17), single-site study (4.28), and misunderstanding of project purpose (4.10). Respondents believed that additional education supplements in journals would be most helpful in increasing successful publication, with a mean rating of 8.31. Other helpful items included a central online repository of venues that publish education scholarship, online training in education research design/methodology, and an online networking site of education researchers to promote collaboration, with mean ratings of 6.88, 6.75, and 6.28, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The majority of our sampling of EM education and academic leaders publish education scholarship. There is a perceived lack of venues for this work. Multiple barriers as well as potential strategies for success have been identified. This information may inform interventions to support the dissemination of education scholarship.