Reconsidering "Scholarship Reconsidered"

Developing scholarly projects in education: A primer for medical teachers. Beckman TJ, Cook, DA. Medical Teacher. 2007; 29: 210-218. Available online. 

What does it mean to be an educational scholar? In 1990, Ernest Boyer published "Scholarship Reconsidered" from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. This text began a conversation that changed the definition of faculty scholarship in higher education to recognize the contribution of educational scholarly projects. In 1997, Glassick's "Scholarship Assessed" continued the conversation by identifying six standards with which to evaluate high quality educational scholarship.

In this article, Beckman and Cook keep the conversation rolling. This primer outlines a framework for designing high quality scholarly education projects such as curriculum, review articles, or research. The authors' approach is based on the four domains presented by Boyer and the six standards by Glassick, but - as appropriate for an audience of busy clinicians - has been neatly condensed into only three steps. 

These three steps (Refine study question, Identify study design & methods, and Select outcomes) guide educational scholars along a path to high quality scholarly work. The article is a salacious guide to developing rigorous research. With its excerpts from novel educational research textbooks (yes, these exist) to a quick yet comprehensive section on validity, this article should be a staple in any research curriculum or resource file. This article - along with the work of Boyer and Glassick - are must reads for budding educators, researchers, and - at the very least - those that will ultimately promote them.

Bottom Line:

Beckman and Cook harness the power of Boyer and Glassick (some higher education household names) to deliver a comprehensive framework for building (and evaluating!) high quality educational scholarship in three perfectly-portioned steps. Print this article, grab your highlighter, and delve in. 

March 2013: Dust Yourself Off and Resubmit

Batting 300 is Good: Perspectives of Faculty Researchers and their Mentors on Rejection, Resilience, and Persistence in Academic Medical Careers. 
DeCastro R, Sambuco D, Ubel PA, Stewart A, Jagsi R. Academic Medicine. 2013: 88(4): 497-504. Available online.

Peer review is the lifeblood of advancing scholarship in academia - pushing the boundary of knowledge - and rejection is a healthy part of that process. It still hurts, though, doesn't it?  

This article, by DeCastro et al., is one of several articles published on data collected from interviews with 128 K-award recipients and mentors. Data presented in this article specifically focus on rejection and persistence in early career scholars.  

As if personally addressing every young scholar, the authors present two major themes from their qualitative analysis. The first is “the pervasiveness of professional criticism and rejection and the need for resilience in academic medicine.” The authors found that most early career scholars expected rejection and criticism. The delineation between success and failure, however, was the way that such rejection was handled. One respondent offered: “Everybody at this level is smart. Success doesn't really vary with brains at this point; success is often more about perseverance.”(p. 500)

Given the participants, it should be no surprise that the second theme identified in the data was “the role of mentoring and other environmental factors in promoting resilience.” Turns out, resilience is tough. Much like an Olympic athlete needs a coach, so too do scholars need guidance. Mentors were found to be valuable for giving positive words of wisdom, encouragement, and advice. Male mentors likened the process to sports: “Like in baseball, a good average is 300. You need to be able to have the perseverance to be submitting grants… knowing that… a good percent hit rate will be like 3 out of 10… be aware of that and just keep trying.”(p. 501)

Not all novice scholars will be lucky enough to have mentors coaching and guiding them forward. This article, though, is a refreshing, evidence-based dose of fortitude; insightful enough to provide comfort and strong enough to pick you up after a rejection. 

Bottom Line:

This article presents data which outline the importance of resilience and the role of mentorship for early-career academic medicine faculty. It’s a comforting read for junior faculty but a critical piece of research for potential mentors. 

February 2013: Tweeting Teachers

Twelve tips for using Twitter as a learning tool in medical education. Forgie SE, Duff JP, Ross S. Medical Teacher. 2013, January; 35L: 8-14. Available online.

We all know it, but it bears repeating: teaching is about the learner, not the teacher. And, learners can be tricky. Fortunately, there’s an app for that. Or, so say the authors of the article highlighted this month. 

In their “Twelve Tips” feature in Medical Teacher, Forgie et al. push Twitter (and Tweeting, Tweeple, Twittory, and Twit) into our apparently stodgy medical education vernacular.  Make no mistake, the article is first and foremost an embarrassingly helpful foray into social technology. Stepping back, though, the authors present a fresh solution to an old problem: how do we continue to make teaching about the learners? 

Presuming that your learners are comfortable with Twitter and the integration of technology, this article neatly highlights several opportunities for the adaptability of standard educational processes (evaluation, self-reflection, feedback, sharing literature) into Twitter. So, after reading this article, are you going to run to your computer (or mobile device), set up a Twitter account, and start counting your characters? Perhaps.

But what might be more likely – and more effective – is for you to use this article as an impetus to think proactively about opportunities to make your teaching more about your learners. Twitter is one way. There exist other technologies which can tap into such basic principles of adult learning, such as audience response systems, online learning sites, or sites to freshen up your presentations. Experiment with innovative teaching strategies. With all this opportunity, all that stands between you and learner-centered teaching is remembering your username and password.

Bottom Line:

140 characters can be the distance between you and your learners: how else can you bridge the gap? (98 characters)