Experts In Education Research Research Articles

Trends in STEM Education Research in Europe in 2005-2019

Finnish STEM education research experts critically examined the focus of STEM education research, particularly in physics, chemistry, and biology, using the didactic triangle framework. Analyzing numerous research papers and master's theses from forums like NorDiNa and ESERA, three pivotal articles were highlighted. These articles revealed dominant research trends like the student-content relationship, underscored areas lacking attention, such as educators' insights into students' perceptions, and advocated for a broader, more holistic approach in future STEM education research endeavors.

Open Network Infrastructure for the Commons

An ongoing challenge in the day-to-day reality of research work is the disparate, disconnected array of tools they must piece together to manage their work. What’s more, there is a clear hierarchy in the research tools landscape, preferencing “traditional” scholarly output, elevating certain disciplines over others (both in direct and indirect ways), and obscuring the very human work of doing research. While there is no single solution to these challenges, academy-owned and -designed infrastructure is emerging to help address them. This poster will explore one such effort: HCommons. The Commons model is a natural ally for open research work, and, critically, centers the social dimensions alongside resources and protocols. Crucial to a healthy Commons is infrastructure, which HCommons provides. Hosted at Michigan State University, HCommons facilitates: Collaboration, communication and sharing, both public and private Open publication & archiving, including of so-called “grey literature" Public-facing sites and profiles With more than 30,000 users worldwide, HCommons started life in the Humanities – a rarity in the open research space that offers a unique perspective – and is expanding into other disciplines, with explicit support of open education and open data, in addition to the broadest possible range of open publications. Work is also underway to integrate open peer review, and future features could include user-curation and annotation. In addition, community development efforts are focused on equipping users to organise and manage their own communities, and to contribute back to the governance of HCommons itself. As an example of commoning in action, HCommons has partnered with STEM education research experts to establish a new STEM-focused Commons node, which will be developed in line with CARE, FAIR and Open standards. This initiative recently received a National Science Foundation (NSF; one of the largest federal science funding bodies in the United States) grant, which includes funds to migrate to CERN-developed Invenio as the underlying Commons repository software, further establishing robust infrastructure for the network. Aside from the technical components, the new Commons will be seeded with a wide range of initiatives underway by our STEM education research partners, demonstrating the power of a holistic approach. These include: Creating collaborative spaces for discipline-based education research Launching a public site to recruit post-doctoral candidates via a transparent, equity-driven process Transitioning an established listserv to offer increased value to subscribers By consolidating multiple related efforts, the team can bring their work into alignment, reduce barriers to participation, reduce management overhead, and put their values into action. Our goal is to use our experience to create a replicable model to develop new nodes in an open network, whether discipline-focused, institutional, project-based, serving scholarly societies or specific geographic areas, which in turn will foster a vibrant, interdependent, collaborative Commons for sharing knowledge globally. We invite you to join us.

Leveling the field: Development of reliable scoring rubrics for quantitative and qualitative medical education research abstracts.

Research abstracts are submitted for presentation at scientific conferences; however, criteria for judging abstracts are variable. We sought to develop two rigorous abstract scoring rubrics for education research submissions reporting (1) quantitative data and (2) qualitative data and then to collect validity evidence to support score interpretation. We used a modified Delphi method to achieve expert consensus for scoring rubric items to optimize content validity. Eight education research experts participated in two separate modified Delphi processes, one to generate quantitative research items and one for qualitative. Modifications were made between rounds based on item scores and expert feedback. Homogeneity of ratings in the Delphi process was calculated using Cronbach's alpha, with increasing homogeneity considered an indication of consensus. Rubrics were piloted by scoring abstracts from 22 quantitative publications from AEM Education and Training "Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Education Research" (11 highlighted for excellent methodology and 11 that were not) and 10 qualitative publications (five highlighted for excellent methodology and five that were not). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates of reliability were calculated. Each rubric required three rounds of a modified Delphi process. The resulting quantitative rubric contained nine items: quality of objectives, appropriateness of methods, outcomes, data analysis, generalizability, importance to medical education, innovation, quality of writing, and strength of conclusions (Cronbach's α for the third round=0.922, ICC for total scores during piloting=0.893). The resulting qualitative rubric contained seven items: quality of study aims, general methods, data collection, sampling, data analysis, writing quality, and strength of conclusions (Cronbach's α for the third round=0.913, ICC for the total scores during piloting=0.788). We developed scoring rubrics to assess quality in quantitative and qualitative medical education research abstracts to aid in selection for presentation at scientific meetings. Our tools demonstrated high reliability.

Use of the "Step-back" Method for Education Research Consultation at the National Level: A Pilot Study.

There are a limited number of emergency medicine (EM) physicians with expertise in education research. The Harvard Macy "step-back" method is an emerging model utilized to gather group feedback. Despite its use in multiple educational settings, there are little published data demonstrating effectiveness. Our objective was to create and evaluate a national faculty development session providing consultation in education research utilizing the step-back method. This was a pilot study. EM experts in education research from across the country served as facilitators for a faculty development session held at the 2018 Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Academic Assembly. Small groups consisting of two or three facilitators and one or two participants were formed and each participant underwent a step-back consultation for their education research study. Participants wrote their study question before and after the session. After the session, facilitators and participants completed an evaluative survey consisting of multiple-choice, Likert-type, and free-response items. Descriptive statistics were reported. Qualitative analysis using a thematic approach was performed on free-response data. Participant study questions were assessed by the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) and FINER (feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant) criteria. Both scales were evaluated using a two-way random-consistency intraclass correlation. Before and after scores were evaluated with a paired t-test. Twenty-four facilitators and 13 participants completed the step-back session. Evaluations from 20 facilitators and nine participants were submitted and analyzed. Sixteen of 20 facilitators felt that the step-back method "greatly facilitated" their ability to share their education research expertise. All facilitators and participants recommended that the session be provided at a future academic assembly. Regarding suggestions for improvement, qualitative analysis revealed three major themes: praise for the session, desire for additional time, and a room set up more conducive to small group work. Seven of nine responding participants felt that the session was "very valuable" for improving the strength of their study methods. Qualitative analysis regarding change in study as a result of the step-back session yielded four major themes: refinement of study question, more specific outcomes and measurements, improvement in study design, and greater understanding of study limitations. Both FINER and PICO scale comparisons showed improvement pre- and postintervention (PICO 60% relative increase; FINER 16% relative increase). Neither achieved statistical significance (PICO t(5)=-1.835, p=0.126; and FINER t(5)=-1.305, p=0.249). A national-level education research consultation utilizing the step-back method was feasible to implement and highly valued by facilitators and participants. Potential positive outcomes include refinement of study question, more specific outcomes and measurements, improvement in study design, and greater understanding of limitations. These results may inform others who want to utilize this method.

Good Problems within and Across Disciplines

This paper focuses on the question of what makes a good disciplinary or interdisciplinary problem. We draw from literature across the STEM disciplines and two conference sessions to provide insight into what makes a good problem within a specific discipline and across the disciplines. We use various frameworks to analyze a variety of problems that were nominated as exemplars by STEM education research experts. Common features identified include real-world connections, reinforcement of conceptual understanding, a low floor and high ceiling, multiple solutions paths, and building dispositions of professionals in the discipline. While a good problem need not have all of these features, in general, good problems have more of these features. We also recognize that these problems are context-specific, as what may be considered a problem for one learner could be a trivial exercise for another. We discuss some of the challenges of designing good interdisciplinary problems and identify some features that can make a problem interdisciplinary, including use of cross-cutting concepts and drawing on the specific expertise of each discipline.

How common are experimental designs in medical education? Findings from a bibliometric analysis of recent dissertations and theses

Background: There has been a recent influx of researchers in the field of medical education coming from medical and health science backgrounds. Researchers from health fields often misunderstand that studies involving experimental designs are relatively rare throughout educational research. Experts in education research note that experimental designs largely are incompatible with educational studies due to various contextual, legal, and ethical issues. Purpose: We sought to investigate the frequency with which experimental designs have been utilized in recent medical education dissertations and theses. Methods: A bibliometric analysis of dissertations and theses completed in the field of medical education between 2011 and 2016. Results: Fewer than 10% of doctoral dissertations and master's theses involved some type of experimental design. Only 6.12% of all dissertation and master's projects involved randomized experiments. Conclusions: Randomized experiments occur only slightly more frequently in medical education than other educational fields.

143 Experts in Education Research: Advice to Emergency Medicine Education Researchers: A Qualitative Study

143 Experts in Education Research: Advice to Emergency Medicine Education Researchers: A Qualitative Study

Exploring Scholarship and the Emergency Medicine Educator: A Workforce Study.

IntroductionRecent literature calls for initiatives to improve the quality of education studies and support faculty in approaching educational problems in a scholarly manner. Understanding the emergency medicine (EM) educator workforce is a crucial precursor to developing policies to support educators and promote education scholarship in EM. This study aims to illuminate the current workforce model for the academic EM educator.MethodsProgram leadership at EM training programs completed an online survey consisting of multiple choice, completion, and free-response type items. We calculated and reported descriptive statistics.Results112 programs participated. Mean number of core faculty/program: 16.02 ± 7.83 [14.53–17.5]. Mean number of faculty full-time equivalents (FTEs)/program dedicated to education is 6.92 ± 4.92 [5.87–7.98], including (mean FTE): Vice chair for education (0.25); director of medical education (0.13); education fellowship director (0.2); residency program director (0.83); associate residency director (0.94); assistant residency director (1.1); medical student clerkship director (0.8); assistant/associate clerkship director (0.28); simulation fellowship director (0.11); simulation director (0.42); director of faculty development (0.13). Mean number of FTEs/program for education administrative support is 2.34 ± 1.1 [2.13–2.61]. Determination of clinical hours varied; 38.75% of programs had personnel with education research expertise.ConclusionEducation faculty represent about 43% of the core faculty workforce. Many programs do not have the full spectrum of education leadership roles and educational faculty divide their time among multiple important academic roles. Clinical requirements vary. Many departments lack personnel with expertise in education research. This information may inform interventions to promote education scholarship.

Un trago dulce pero adentro con sabor amargo (A Bittersweet Swallow): Constructing Counterspaces to Explore Undocumented Status Across Academic, Family, and Community Spaces

ABSTRACTIn this article a group of seven Latina/o immigrants, parents, advocates, and ethnographers draw on critical race theory to explore what it means to co-present on, and engage in, difficult conversations about immigration and documentation status. We theorize how, through critical collaboration motivated by our joint presentation, we co-constructed counterspaces in which, while interrogating what we tend to count as knowledge and expertise in education research, we could address not only the difficulty of communicating with teachers about issues surrounding documentation status, but also of knowing how to approach this topic with children and with each other. We argue that these carefully crafted counterspaces created opportunities to push beyond our traditional norms, breach silences, and open up ways in which to reposition the safety of engaging in conversations regarding undocumented status with our children, communities, educators, and with each other.

Expertise, Time, Money, Mentoring, and Reward: Systemic Barriers That Limit Education Researcher Productivity-Proceedings From the AAMC GEA Workshop.

To further evolve in an evidence-based fashion, medical education needs to develop and evaluate new practices for teaching, learning, and assessment. However, educators face barriers in designing, conducting, and publishing education research. To explore the barriers medical educators face in formulating, conducting, and publishing high-quality medical education research, and to identify strategies for overcoming them. A consensus workshop was held November 5, 2013, at the Association of American Medical Colleges annual meeting. A working group of education research experts and educators completed a preconference literature review focusing on barriers to education research. During the workshop, consensus-based and small group techniques were used to refine the broad themes into content categories. Attendees then ranked the most important barriers and strategies for overcoming them with the highest potential impact. Barriers participants faced in conducting quality education research included lack of (1) expertise, (2) time, (3) funding, (4) mentorship, and (5) reward. The strategy considered most effective in overcoming these barriers involved building communities of education researchers for collaboration and networking, and advocating for education researchers' interests. Other suggestions included trying to secure increased funding opportunities, developing mentoring programs, and encouraging mechanisms to ensure protected time. Barriers to education research productivity clearly exist. Many appear to result from feelings of isolation that may be overcome with systemic efforts to develop and enable communities of practice across institutions. Finally, the theme of "reward" is novel and complex and may have implications for education research productivity.