REQUEST DEMO
MENUCLOSE

 

REQUEST DEMO
Clinical Operations
Commercial Teams
Resources
Medical Education
About Us
Connect with us
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in
Sign in

Author: Brian S McGowan, PhD

RESOURCE: 20 Popular Technology in Education Quotes

We all love reading quotes. Benefits are more than just getting that dose of inspiration and hope. Read out the list below of technology in education quotes to know it yourself.

1) “Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is most important.” – Bill Gates

2) “There can be infinite uses of the computer and of new age technology, but if teachers themselves are not able to bring it into the classroom and make it work, then it fails.” – Nancy Kassebaum

3) “Any teacher that can be replaced with a computer, deserves to be.” – David Thornburg

4) “Teachers need to integrate technology seamlessly into the curriculum instead of viewing it as an add-on, an afterthought, or an event.” – Heidi-Hayes Jacobs

… … …

via 20 Popular Technology in Education Quotes – EdTechReview™ (ETR).

Continue Reading

RESOURCE: 5 Ways to Turn Panels from Boring To Brilliant

What Are the Worst Things About Panels?
So how do we loathe panels? It turns out there are 10 main ways, according to a recent survey.

10. Too many panelists. The optimal number, Arnold said, is three or four–four is best if you are concerned that one may drop out.
9. Poor time management
8. A panel discussion that isn’t actually a conversation. Especially painful is the hot-potato moderator who asks each panelist the same question, so by the time you get to the third or fourth, they’re straining to come up with anything remotely interesting to say that hasn’t already been said.
7. A panel that goes off-topic or has no real point
6. No audience engagement
5. Ego and self-promotion (one of my personal pet peeves)
4. Out-of-control panelists
3. Unprepared moderator and panelists
2. Dominating panelists
1. An ineffective moderator.

via Improve Panel Discussions | No More Boring Panels | face2face.

Continue Reading

ABSTRACT: Electronic and postal reminders for improving immunisation coverage in children

INTRODUCTION:
Worldwide, suboptimal immunisation coverage causes the deaths of more than one million children under five from vaccine-preventable diseases every year. Reasons for suboptimal coverage are multifactorial, and a combination of interventions is needed to improve compliance with immunisation schedules. One intervention relies on reminders, where the health system prompts caregivers to attend immunisation appointments on time or re-engages caregivers who have defaulted on scheduled appointments. We undertake this systematic review to investigate the potential of reminders using emails, phone calls, social media, letters or postcards to improve immunisation coverage in children under five.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS:
We will search for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, WHOLIS, Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Platform. We will conduct screening of search results, study selection, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment in duplicate, resolving disagreements by consensus. In addition, we will pool data from clinically homogeneous studies using random-effects meta-analysis; assess heterogeneity of effects using the χ2 test of homogeneity; and quantify any observed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:
This protocol does not need approval by an ethics committee because we will use publicly available data, without directly involving human participants. The results will provide updated evidence on the effects of electronic and postal reminders on immunisation coverage, and we will discuss the applicability of the findings to low and middle-income countries. We plan to disseminate review findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at relevant conferences. In addition, we will prepare a policymaker-friendly summary using a validated format (eg, SUPPORT Summary) and disseminate this through social media and email discussion groups.

via Electronic and postal reminders for improving immunisation coverage in children: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. – PubMed – NCBI.

Continue Reading

MANUSCRIPT: The perceived effects of faculty presence vs. absence on small-group learning and group dynamics

BACKGROUND:
Medical education increasingly relies on small-group learning. Small group learning provides more active learning, better retention, higher satisfaction, and facilitates development of problem-solving and team-working abilities. However, less is known about student experience and preference for different small groups teaching models. We evaluated group educational dynamics and group learning process in medical school clerkship small group case-based settings, with a faculty member present versus absent.
METHODS:
Students completed surveys after cases when the faculty was present (“in”) or absent (“out”) for the bulk of the discussion. 228 paired surveys (114 pairs) were available for paired analysis, assessing group dynamics, group learning process, student preference, and participation through self-report and self-rating of group behaviors tied to learning and discussion quality.
RESULTS:
Ratings of group dynamics and group learning process were significantly higher with the faculty absent vs. present (p range <0.001 to 0.015). Students also reported higher levels of participation when the faculty member was absent (p = 0.03). Students were more likely to express a preference for having the faculty member present after “in” case vs. “out” case discussions. (p < 0.001). There was no difference in reported success of the case discussion after “in” vs. “out” cases (p = 0.67).
CONCLUSIONS:
Student groups without faculty present reported better group dynamics, group learning processes, and participation with faculty absent. Students reported that they feel somewhat dependent on faculty, especially when the faculty is present, though there was no significant difference in students reporting that they obtained the most they could from the discussion of the case after both “in” and “out” cases.

via The perceived effects of faculty presence vs. absence on small-group learning and group dynamics: a quasi-experimental study. – PubMed – NCBI.

Continue Reading

MANUSCRIPT: Putting performance in context: the perceived influence of environmental factors on work-based performance

INTRODUCTION:
Context shapes behaviours yet is seldom considered when assessing competence. Our objective was to explore attending physicians’ and trainees’ perceptions of the Internal Medicine Clinical Teaching Unit (CTU) environment and how they thought contextual factors affected their performance.
METHOD:
29 individuals recently completing CTU rotations participated in nine level-specific focus groups (2 with attending physicians, 3 with senior and 2 with junior residents, and 2 with students). Participants were asked to identify environmental factors on the CTU and to describe how these factors influenced their own performance across CanMEDS roles. Discussions were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory.
RESULTS:
Five major contextual factors were identified: Busyness, Multiple Hats, Other People, Educational Structures, and Hospital Resources and Policies. Busyness emerged as the most important, but all factors had a substantial perceived impact on performance. Participants felt their performance on the Manager and Scholar roles was most affected by environmental factors (mostly negatively, due to decreased efficiency and impact on learning).
CONCLUSIONS:
In complex workplace environments, numerous factors shape performance. These contextual factors and their impact need to be considered in observations and judgements made about performance in the workplace, as without this understanding conclusions about competency may be flawed.

via Putting performance in context: the perceived influence of environmental factors on work-based performance. – PubMed – NCBI.

Continue Reading

ABSTRACT: Reviews of theoretical frameworks: Challenges and judging the quality of theory application

BACKGROUND:
Rigorous reviews of available information, from a range of resources, are required to support medical and health educators in their decision making.
AIM:
The aim of this article is to highlight the importance of a review of theoretical frameworks specifically as a supplement to reviews that focus on a synthesis of the empirical evidence alone. Establishing a shared understanding of theory as a concept is highlighted as a challenge and some practical strategies to achieving this are presented. This article also introduces the concept of theoretical quality, arguing that a critique of how theory is applied should complement the methodological appraisal of the literature in a review.
METHOD:
We illustrate the challenge of establishing a shared meaning of theory through reference to experiences of an on-going review of this kind conducted in the field of interprofessional education (IPE) and use a high scoring paper selected in this review to illustrate how theoretical quality can be assessed.
FINDINGS:
In reaching a shared understanding of theory as a concept, practical strategies that promote experiential and practical ways of knowing are required in addition to more propositional ways of sharing knowledge. Concepts of parsimony, testability, operational adequacy and empirical adequacy are explored as concepts that establish theoretical quality.
CONCLUSIONS:
Reviews of theoretical frameworks used in medical education are required to inform educational practice. Review teams should make time and effort to reach a shared understanding of the term theory. Theory reviews, and reviews more widely, should add an assessment of theory application to the protocol of their review method.

via Reviews of theoretical frameworks: Challenges and judging the quality of theory application. – PubMed – NCBI.

Continue Reading

ABSTRACT: Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Education Research: The Best Publications of 2014

OBJECTIVES:

The objective was to critically appraise and highlight rigorous education research study articles published in 2014 whose outcomes advance the science of emergency medicine (EM) education.

METHODS:

A search of the English language literature in 2014 querying Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsychINFO, PubMed, and Scopus identified 243 EM-related articles using either quantitative (hypothesis-testing or observational investigations of educational interventions) or qualitative (exploring important phenomena in EM education) methods. Two reviewers independently screened all of the publications using previously established exclusion criteria. Six reviewers then independently scored the 25 selected publications using either a qualitative or a quantitative scoring system. Each scoring system consisted of nine criteria. Selected criteria were based on accepted educational review literature and chosen a priori. Both scoring systems use parallel scoring metrics and have been used previously within this annual review.

RESULTS:

Twenty-five medical education research papers (22 quantitative, three qualitative) met the criteria for inclusion and were reviewed. Five quantitative and two qualitative studies were ranked most highly by the reviewers as exemplary and are summarized in this article.

CONCLUSIONS:

This annual critical appraisal series highlights seven excellent EM education research studies, meeting a priori criteria and published in 2014. Methodologic strengths in the 2014 papers are noted, and current trends in medical education research in EM are discussed.

Continue Reading

Getting Started with Nudges and Choice Architecture

There may not be an area of behavioral science that I am more in enthralled by than “nudges” and “choice architecture” so I couldn’t be happier to share my passion with you!

In brief, these concepts address how humans are unrelentingly irrational. As a result, our choices are often neither rational or constructive – worse yet, our everyday choices are usually just the opposite. We struggle to balance long-term and short-term benefits and risks, we are more in tune with negatives than positives when reflecting and more in tune with positives than negatives when forecasting…and this undermines our lives, moods, and careers more so than just about any other element of ‘being human’….The research behind these statements has been masterfully summarized and explored in the following works:

To help construct a practical value proposition – this NY Times article from 2013 is a great place to start: Britain’s Ministry of Nudges 

And, just to end with one, more analytical perspective – check out the work of Stanford professor BJ Fogg…I love this simplification so much I have considered it as a potential tattoo 😉

BJ Fogg Behavior Model Grapic

I love Dr. Fogg’s work because of how simple he has connected decades of research into Behavioral economics (Motivation), Adult Learning (Ability), Nudge Theory (Triggers)…B = M x A x T!

As you explore this work, it might become increasingly obvious where my ideas around learning models and instructional design are grounded 😉

I’d love to discuss this in depth, if you have any questions!

Continue Reading

MANUSCRIPT: Tackling student neurophobia in neurosciences block with team-based learning

INTRODUCTION:
Traditionally, neurosciences is perceived as a difficult course in undergraduate medical education with literature suggesting use of the term “Neurophobia” (fear of neurology among medical students). Instructional strategies employed for the teaching of neurosciences in undergraduate curricula traditionally include a combination of lectures, demonstrations, practical classes, problem-based learning and clinico-pathological conferences. Recently, team-based learning (TBL), a student-centered instructional strategy, has increasingly been regarded by many undergraduate medical courses as an effective method to assist student learning.
METHODS:
In this study, 156 students of year-three neuroscience block were divided into seven male and seven female groups, comprising 11-12 students in each group. TBL was introduced during the 6 weeks of this block, and a total of eight TBL sessions were conducted during this duration. We evaluated the effect of TBL on student learning and correlated it with the student’s performance in summative assessment. Moreover, the students’ perceptions regarding the process of TBL was assessed by online survey.
RESULTS:
We found that students who attended TBL sessions performed better in the summative examinations as compared to those who did not. Furthermore, students performed better in team activities compared to individual testing, with male students performing better with a more favorable impact on their grades in the summative examination. There was an increase in the number of students achieving higher grades (grade B and above) in this block when compared to the previous block (51.7% vs. 25%). Moreover, the number of students at risk for lower grades (Grade B- and below) decreased in this block when compared to the previous block (30.6% vs. 55%). Students generally elicited a favorable response regarding the TBL process, as well as expressed satisfaction with the content covered and felt that such activities led to improvement in communication and interpersonal skills.
CONCLUSION:
We conclude that implementing TBL strategy increased students’ responsibility for their own learning and helped the students in bridging the gap in their cognitive knowledge to tackle ‘neurophobia’ in a difficult neurosciences block evidenced by their improved performance in the summative assessment

via Tackling student neurophobia in neurosciences block with team-based learning. – PubMed – NCBI.

Continue Reading

ABSTRACT: Barriers and Facilitators to Effective Feedback: A Qualitative Analysis of Data From Multispecialty Resident Focus Groups

BACKGROUND:
Despite the importance of feedback, the literature suggests that there is inadequate feedback in graduate medical education.
OBJECTIVE:
We explored barriers and facilitators that residents in anesthesiology, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and surgery experience with giving and receiving feedback during their clinical training.
METHODS:
Residents from 3 geographically diverse teaching institutions were recruited to participate in focus groups in 2012. Open-ended questions prompted residents to describe their experiences with giving and receiving feedback, and discuss facilitators and barriers. Data were transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method associated with a grounded theory approach.
RESULTS:
A total of 19 residents participated in 1 of 3 focus groups. Five major themes related to feedback were identified: teacher factors, learner factors, feedback process, feedback content, and educational context. Unapproachable attendings, time pressures due to clinical work, and discomfort with giving negative feedback were cited as major barriers in the feedback process. Learner engagement in the process was a major facilitator in the feedback process.
CONCLUSIONS:
Residents provided insights for improving the feedback process based on their dual roles as teachers and learners. Time pressures in the learning environment may be mitigated by efforts to improve the quality of teacher-learner relationships. Forms for collecting written feedback should be augmented by faculty development to ensure meaningful use. Efforts to improve residents’ comfort with giving feedback and encouraging learners to engage in the feedback process may foster an environment conducive to increasing feedback.

via Barriers and Facilitators to Effective Feedback: A Qualitative Analysis of Data From Multispecialty Resident Focus Groups. – PubMed – NCBI.

Continue Reading
Social
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in
Recent News
Contact Us

300 E Main Street, Suite 101 Charlottesville, VA 22902

+1-434-260-1850

Email Us

About Us

ArcheMedX helps life sciences and healthcare organizations to better equip, evaluate, and predict team and clinician performance

ArcheMedX Privacy Policy