Curriculum Research Solutions: Shifting From "Did It Work Locally?" to Contributing to a Scholarly Conversation.

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
David A Cook, Karen E Hauer, Arianne Teherani, Andrea N Leep Hunderfund, Steven J Durning, Jorie M Colbert-Getz
{"title":"Curriculum Research Solutions: Shifting From \"Did It Work Locally?\" to Contributing to a Scholarly Conversation.","authors":"David A Cook, Karen E Hauer, Arianne Teherani, Andrea N Leep Hunderfund, Steven J Durning, Jorie M Colbert-Getz","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000006072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Health professions educators frequently seek to study their curriculum (e.g., a new or revised curriculum for a degree-granting program, a component of that curriculum, or a stand-alone course). Despite local enthusiasm, curriculum-focused studies are often hard to publish and have been repeatedly discouraged. Yet few authors have proposed practical solutions. The purpose of this article is to articulate common problems with curriculum research and to propose specific ways in which curriculum research can be accomplished (and published) successfully. The authors define \"research\" as the rigorous, systematic pursuit of new knowledge with intent to disseminate findings in a peer-reviewed forum. They delineate 5 problems with curriculum-focused research as it is typically done: redundancy (failing to build on prior research); context-specificity; confounding and dilution; superficiality (using data sources of convenience); and conceptual obscurity (failing to employ a relevant conceptual framework). To address these problems, they encourage researchers to stop focusing on their local curriculum and instead join and contribute meaningfully to a global scholarly conversation. Engaging in a scholarly conversation involves listening to the conversation (the literature) to understand what is already known, identifying a gap the researcher can fill with a useful observation, and asking and answering a question that other people will find relevant (to their own local needs), novel (not already known), insightful (shedding light on future action), and credible (well-supported by chosen methods). The authors outline 6 prototypical potentially successful curriculum-focused research studies, including quantitative and qualitative approaches, and cite published examples. They also highlight studies to avoid. They conclude by discussing practical considerations: appraisal of research quality; funding of education research; accessing and acquiring needed research skills; measuring provider behaviors and patient outcomes; ethical issues associated with learners as study participants; and tensions between basic and applied research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000006072","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Health professions educators frequently seek to study their curriculum (e.g., a new or revised curriculum for a degree-granting program, a component of that curriculum, or a stand-alone course). Despite local enthusiasm, curriculum-focused studies are often hard to publish and have been repeatedly discouraged. Yet few authors have proposed practical solutions. The purpose of this article is to articulate common problems with curriculum research and to propose specific ways in which curriculum research can be accomplished (and published) successfully. The authors define "research" as the rigorous, systematic pursuit of new knowledge with intent to disseminate findings in a peer-reviewed forum. They delineate 5 problems with curriculum-focused research as it is typically done: redundancy (failing to build on prior research); context-specificity; confounding and dilution; superficiality (using data sources of convenience); and conceptual obscurity (failing to employ a relevant conceptual framework). To address these problems, they encourage researchers to stop focusing on their local curriculum and instead join and contribute meaningfully to a global scholarly conversation. Engaging in a scholarly conversation involves listening to the conversation (the literature) to understand what is already known, identifying a gap the researcher can fill with a useful observation, and asking and answering a question that other people will find relevant (to their own local needs), novel (not already known), insightful (shedding light on future action), and credible (well-supported by chosen methods). The authors outline 6 prototypical potentially successful curriculum-focused research studies, including quantitative and qualitative approaches, and cite published examples. They also highlight studies to avoid. They conclude by discussing practical considerations: appraisal of research quality; funding of education research; accessing and acquiring needed research skills; measuring provider behaviors and patient outcomes; ethical issues associated with learners as study participants; and tensions between basic and applied research.

课程研究解决方案:从“它在当地起作用了吗?”转变为促进学术对话。
摘要:卫生专业教育工作者经常寻求研究他们的课程(例如,学位授予计划的新课程或修订课程,该课程的组成部分或独立课程)。尽管当地民众热情高涨,但以课程为重点的研究往往难以发表,并一再遭到阻挠。然而,很少有作者提出切实可行的解决方案。本文的目的是阐明课程研究的常见问题,并提出课程研究成功完成(和发表)的具体方法。这两位作者将“研究”定义为严谨、系统地追求新知识,并有意在同行评议的论坛上传播研究成果。他们描述了以课程为中心的研究通常存在的5个问题:冗余(未能建立在先前研究的基础上);context-specificity;混淆和稀释;肤浅(使用方便的数据源);概念模糊(未能采用相关的概念框架)。为了解决这些问题,他们鼓励研究人员停止专注于他们的本地课程,而是加入并为全球学术对话做出有意义的贡献。参与学术对话包括倾听对话(文献)以了解已知的内容,确定研究人员可以用有用的观察来填补的空白,并提出和回答其他人会发现相关的问题(符合他们自己的当地需求),新颖的(未知的),有见地的(照亮未来的行动)和可信的(有选择的方法支持)。作者概述了6个潜在成功的课程研究的原型,包括定量和定性方法,并引用了已发表的例子。他们还强调了要避免的研究。最后,他们讨论了实际考虑:研究质量的评价;教育研究经费;获取和获得所需的研究技能;测量提供者行为和患者结果;与学习者作为研究参与者相关的伦理问题;基础研究和应用研究之间的紧张关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信