Exploring the thesis experience of Master of Health professions education graduates: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore the thesis experience of recent Master of Health Professions Education (MHPE) graduates in the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) program. METHODS: This is a qualitative case study exploring the experience of MHPE graduates between 2014 and 2016 (n=31). Using convenience sampling, all graduates with an email address (n=30) were invited to participate in an online survey and semi-structured interviews. Interviews were completed in-person or via telephone or video conference; interviewers collected detailed notes and audio recordings. Two authors independently analyzed the data iteratively using thematic analysis and discrepancies were discussed and resolved. RESULTS: Survey results (n=20, 67%) revealed an average graduation of 5.1 years; 10 graduates (33%) were interviewed. Three themes related to the thesis experience were identified: success factors, challenges, and outcomes. Success factors, when present, promoted completion of a thesis; these included: a supportive program environment, time management, available resources, MHPE foundational coursework, aligning theses with career goals, and identifying a project with limited scope. Challenges made thesis completion more difficult for graduates; these included: institutional factors, personal or professional responsibilities, burnout, externally-imposed deadlines, and barriers in the research process. Despite these challenges, completing the thesis resulted in many professional or personal benefits (outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple success factors and challenges were identified in the master's thesis process among MHPE graduates at UIC. These findings can help students conducting education-based scholarship through the master's thesis process. This study also informs program evaluation and improvements and outlines personal and professional outcomes of completing a master's thesis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".