Original Publication
Open Access

Guiding Educational Research Projects: Activity-Based Workshops on Writing a Literature Review and Developing Research Questions

Published: July 20, 2015 | 10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10143

Included in this publication:

  • Instructor's Guide.docx
  • Literature Review Workshop.ppt
  • Literature Review Activity.docx
  • Research Questions Workshop.ppt
  • Research Questions Activity.docx

To view all publication components, extract (i.e., unzip) them from the downloaded .zip file.


Editor's Note: This publication predates our implementation of the Educational Summary Report in 2016 and thus displays a different format than newer publications.

Abstract

Introduction: The number of students indicating that they have participated in a research project with a faculty member during medical school has risen steadily. In the same time period, it has become paramount for students interested in academic medicine to master the tools of educational scholarship. Yet, students typically do not have the background knowledge to engage in educational research projects and do not have the time or resources to devote to more formal training. These materials are designed to assist project mentors as they guide medical students toward the completion of medical education research projects. Students will learn to: (1) incorporate relevant literature into a coherent argument in support of the particular questions they wish to investigate and particular educational approaches they adopt, and (2) frame research questions in ways that align with a feasible research design and analytical plan. Methods: This workshop contains a Literature Review workshop and a Research Questions workshop. Both have accompanying PowerPoint presentations to provide background information and an additional activity for active learning. In the Literature Review workshop, students critique an early draft and compare it to a revision, while in the Research Question workshop they classify and develop questions. The activities can be used as stand-alone resources for those mentors who wish to use their own slides on these topics. Results: On a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent), 44 students rated the Literature Review workshop as a 4.7 on average for overall value. Twelve students rated the Research Questions workshop 4.8 on average for overall value. Narrative feedback in response a question asking what was most valuable about this overall resource included the following representative comments: “The final activity, comparing the two (literature reviews), was super powerful. Very well paced presentation. Not too slow, not too much info.” “I really liked applying the knowledge gained from the PowerPoint to the two examples of literature reviews! It was really useful to have the group discussion!” “Great session. I learned a lot about how to phrase my question. I am walking away not with an answer but with a way of thinking.” Discussion: We have established a program for promoting and recognizing educational scholarship that provides students with initial opportunities to frame a project in light of current educational trends and established educational research methodology. The resources can be used separately or sequentially to provide activity-based workshops targeted to some of the specific difficulties medical students encounter in developing projects.


Educational Objectives

By the end of the Literature Review workshop, students will be able to:

  1. Explain the role a critical review of relevant literature plays in a research project.
  2. List key features of effective reviews.
  3. Illustrate various review structures.

By the end of the Research Questions workshop, students will be able to:

  1. Identify criteria for developing research questions that can be answered.
  2. Classify purposes and types of research questions.
  3. Recognize representative research designs that match types of questions.
  4. Create examples of different types of research questions.

Author Information

  • Robert Lebeau, EdD: Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

Disclosures
None to report.

Funding/Support
None to report.


References

  1. American Association of Medical Colleges. (2009). Medical school graduation questionnaire: All schools report. Retrieved from https://www.aamc.org/download/90054/data/gqfinalreport2009.pdf
  2. American Association of Medical Colleges. (2014). Medical school graduation questionnaire: All schools report. Retrieved from https://www.aamc.org/download/397432/data/2014gqallschoolssummaryreport.pdf
  3. Beckman, T. J., & Cook, D. A. (2007). Developing scholarly projects in education: A primer for medical teachers. Medical Teacher, 29(2-3), 210–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590701291469
  4. Bordage, G. (2009). Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Medical Education, 43(4), 312–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03295.x
  5. Cook, D. A., & Beckman, T. J. (2010). Reflections on experimental research in medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(3), 455–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-008-9117-3
  6. Cook, D. A., Bordage, G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2008). Description, justification and clarification: A framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Medical Education, 42(2), 128–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02974.x
  7. Cooke, M., Irby, D. M., & O'Brien, B. C. (2010). Educating physicians: A call for reform of medical school and residency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  8. Cooper, H. (2006). Research questions and research designs. In P. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 849-878). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  10. Crites, G. E., Gaines, J. K., Cottrell, S., Kalishman, S., Gusic, M., Mavis, B., & Durning, S. J. (2014). Medical education scholarship: An introductory guide—AMEE Guide No. 89. Medical Teacher, 36(8), 657–674. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.916791
  11. Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Tigelaar, D. (2012). Building bridges between theory and practice in medical education using a design-based research approach: AMEE Guide No. 60. Medical Teacher, 34(1), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.595437
  12. Fink, A. (2014). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  13. Kelly, A. M. (2012). Evaluating and writing education papers compared with noneducation papers. Academic Radiology, 19(9), 1100–1109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2012.05.002
  14. Kennedy, T. J. T., & Lingard, L. A. (2006). Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Medical Education, 40(2), 101–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02378.x
  15. Knopf, J. W. (2006). Doing a literature review. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(01), 127–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096506060264
  16. Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). (2014). Functions and structure of a medical school: Standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the M.D. degree. Retrieved from http://www.lcme.org/publications.htm
  17. Lingard, L., & Kennedy, T. J. (2010). Qualitative research methods in medical education. In T. Stanwick (Ed.), Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory, and Practice (pp. 323-335). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444320282.ch22
  18. Norman, G., & Eva, K.W. (2010). Quantitative research methods in medical education. In T. Stanwick (Ed.), Understanding Medical Education: Evidence, Theory, and Practice (pp. 301-322). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444320282.ch21
  19. Ridley, D. (2012). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
  20. Ringsted, C., Hodges, B., & Scherpbier, A. (2011). "The research compass": An introduction to research in medical education—AMEE Guide No. 56. Medical Teacher, 33(9), 695–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.595436
  21. Simpson, D., Fincher, R. E., Hafler, J. P., Irby, D.M., Richards, B.R., Rosenfeld, G.C., & Viggiano, T.R. (2007). Advancing educators and education by defining the components and evidence associated with educational scholarship. Medical Education, 41(10), 1002-1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02844.x
  22. Tavakol, M., & Sandars, J. (2014a). Quantitative and qualitative methods in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 90—Part I. Medical Teacher, 36(9), 746–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.915298
  23. Tavakol, M., & Sandars, J. (2014b). Quantitative and qualitative methods in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 90—Part II. Medical Teacher, 36(10), 838–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.915297
  24. Watling, C. J., & Lingard, L. (2012). Grounded theory in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 70. Medical Teacher, 34(10), 850–861. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.704439
  25. Williams, J. M. (2007). The craft of argument (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.


Citation

Lebeau R. Guiding educational research projects: activity-based workshops on writing a literature review and developing research questions. MedEdPORTAL. 2015;11:10143. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10143