Disrupted, but not derailed: A year of scholarship in health professions education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The commitment of health care professionals over the last year is unparalleled. In a time of crisis, going on for longer than anyone could have imagined, health care providers demonstrated an ability to rise higher, work harder and care even more deeply. Astoundingly, education did not get lost in the mix, as evidenced by the recently held Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM) of the Association for the Study of Medical Education. Ironically, the theme of 2020's (cancelled) meeting was to be “Disrupting medical education.” As COVID forced the concept from a rallying cry into an imposed necessity, this year's ASM, “Disrupted medical education,” was a shining light coming at what we hope is the end of an all too long tunnel. In parallel sessions, plenaries and workshops, we listened to stories of scholarship, creativity and an unwillingness to let a pandemic get in the way of educational progress. Learners, in particular, led the way in education design, creating opportunities for near peer teaching, mentoring and leadership. While technology took centre stage in education delivery this year, the ASM made it abundantly clear that it was the engagement of educators and learners in this rapid evolution, and their ability to “adapt, improvise and overcome” educational challenges that enabled successful continuation of education programmes. And somehow, through it all, education scholars managed to largely keep their research programmes and quality assurance activities afloat. To be sure, many adaptations were required with time-limited studies (e.g., MSc projects) being particularly impacted by issues of recruitment, availability of ethics committees and challenges in data collection like conducting focus groups in virtual environments. However, in the main, many appear to have successfully found workarounds, adapting protocols to ensure feasibility, without compromising their study's integrity. Context, as always, was critical, and scholars at the ASM offered compelling insights into how they grappled with the nuances of their situation, recognising how observations and experiences might have been different in different environments including different points in time. We are aware that those who were able to present at the ASM are likely a select sample as others undoubtedly had projects irretrievably derailed through no fault of their own. We think the strategies and transformations (both curricular and methodological) presented at the meeting offer keys to unlocking adaptations elsewhere and came away from the ASM excited to see that the future of health professions education scholarship is looking very bright. Our field has always been one of committed researchers, academics, educators and learners who prioritise and maintain a strong sense of community, a practice of paying it forward, and a desire to continue pushing the boundaries of methodology and education science. In efforts to replicate that history, it was comforting to see more than one workshop that focused on careers in health professions education, with learners and trainees keen to strategically develop educational scholarship and leadership opportunities alongside their clinical training and practice. The challenge now is to consider and evaluate how the countless crisis-time adaptations can be adapted further to maintain their best qualities while overcoming concessions that needed to be made throughout the past year. The pandemic, therefore, creates vast opportunities to shape the next era of education design and delivery as we begin to grapple with the question of “what will we do when we have the time to actually shape change instead of reacting to disruptions forced upon us?” We do not claim perfect clarity in this regard but are reassured by our attendance at the ASM that the question is in good hands and we look forward to hearing the answers delegates have generated at next year's (in person?) ASM.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».