Abstract:Title. A systematic review protocol on the use of teaching portfolios for educators in further and higher education. Aim. This paper is a review protocol that will be used to identify, critically appraise and synthesize the best current evidence relating to the use of teaching portfolios for educators in further and higher education. Background. While portfolio use as a means to assist students in further and higher education has undergone extensive research and review, their use as a tool to assist educators … Show more
“…In response to these concerns, the development process of this systematic review is illustrated in Figure 1. The methodology used has been adapted from JBI [37] and other mixed methods systematic reviews [45]. The robust method of this systematic review protocol enables critical appraisal and synthesis of the cumulate global evidence on the topic, while preserving the integrity of findings from different study designs and providing precise results with rich contextual data.Figure 1
Systematic review development.…”
BackgroundMentorship is perceived as vital to attracting, training, and retaining nursing faculty members and to maintaining high-quality education programs. While there is emerging evidence to support the value of mentorship in academic medicine, the extant state of the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia has not been established. We describe a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review to critically appraise the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia.MethodsStudies examining the effectiveness of mentorship interventions with nursing faculty who teach in registered nursing education programs will be included. Mentee, mentor, and nursing education institutional outcomes will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies will be eligible for inclusion, without restrictions on publication status, year of publication, or language. We will search electronic databases (for example, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC) and gray literature (for example, conference proceedings, key journals, relevant organizational websites) for relevant citations. Using pilot-tested screening and data extraction forms, two reviewers will independently review the studies in three steps: (1) abstract/title screening, (2) full-text screening of accepted studies, and (3) data extraction of accepted studies. Studies will be aggregated for meta-synthesis (qualitative) and meta-analysis (quantitative), should the data permit.DiscussionThis study is the first systematic review of existing global evidence for mentorship in nursing academia. It will help identify key evidence gaps and inform the development and implementation of mentorship interventions. The mentorship outcomes that result from this review could be used to guide the practice of mentorship to increase positive outcomes for nursing faculty and the students they teach and ultimately effect improvements for the patients they care for. This review will also identify key considerations for future research on mentorship in nursing academia and the enhancement of nursing science.
“…In response to these concerns, the development process of this systematic review is illustrated in Figure 1. The methodology used has been adapted from JBI [37] and other mixed methods systematic reviews [45]. The robust method of this systematic review protocol enables critical appraisal and synthesis of the cumulate global evidence on the topic, while preserving the integrity of findings from different study designs and providing precise results with rich contextual data.Figure 1
Systematic review development.…”
BackgroundMentorship is perceived as vital to attracting, training, and retaining nursing faculty members and to maintaining high-quality education programs. While there is emerging evidence to support the value of mentorship in academic medicine, the extant state of the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia has not been established. We describe a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review to critically appraise the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia.MethodsStudies examining the effectiveness of mentorship interventions with nursing faculty who teach in registered nursing education programs will be included. Mentee, mentor, and nursing education institutional outcomes will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies will be eligible for inclusion, without restrictions on publication status, year of publication, or language. We will search electronic databases (for example, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC) and gray literature (for example, conference proceedings, key journals, relevant organizational websites) for relevant citations. Using pilot-tested screening and data extraction forms, two reviewers will independently review the studies in three steps: (1) abstract/title screening, (2) full-text screening of accepted studies, and (3) data extraction of accepted studies. Studies will be aggregated for meta-synthesis (qualitative) and meta-analysis (quantitative), should the data permit.DiscussionThis study is the first systematic review of existing global evidence for mentorship in nursing academia. It will help identify key evidence gaps and inform the development and implementation of mentorship interventions. The mentorship outcomes that result from this review could be used to guide the practice of mentorship to increase positive outcomes for nursing faculty and the students they teach and ultimately effect improvements for the patients they care for. This review will also identify key considerations for future research on mentorship in nursing academia and the enhancement of nursing science.
“…The search methods used here are comparable to a systematic review protocol developed by McColgan and Blackwood (2009) to evaluate teaching in higher education. Prior to commencing a systematic search for primary literature, confirmation of any existing systematic reviews will be made through the Database of Abstracts and Reviews.…”
Section: Search Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Systematic synthesis is a quality appraisal process that pools together the evidence extracted from included studies to collectively answer a research question (McColgan & Blackwood, 2009). Quality appraisal through systematic synthesis is essential to ensure that practice is evidenced based and fit for purpose.…”
“…Portfolios are increasingly seen to be a valuable tool for assessment of competencies and are used in many professions such as nursing, medicine, and teaching (McColgan and Blackwood, 2009). In accreditation environments, digital portfolios can provide a space where learners' evidence of their competencies and achievements can be stored and systematically evaluated (Fiedler et al, 2009).…”
English has become increasingly important for medical professionals in Japan. This means English language teachers in medical schools are tasked to not only deliver an intensive time constrained English curriculum, but also expected to design and implement effective and attractive review courses for learners' autonomous study. The authors of this paper have created Moodle-based English courses to improve the English curricula by integrating 'blended-learning' in class. They also have started to provide ongoing access to a range of review courses to help their students' autonomous study. This paper outlines how the authors integrated a self-reflective framework and a badge system in the review courses they created. It illustrates how this framework helped learners identify for themselves the appropriate course at the appropriate level. It also demonstrates how the awarding of badges helps to motivate learners to actively engage with and complete the module and/or the course they have chosen.Keywords: learner autonomy; self-reflective framework; badges; English education; Moodle; motivation.Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Iwata, J., Clayton, J. Biographical notes: Jun Iwata is a Professor of English Language Teaching at the School of Medicine, Shimane University, Japan. He teaches English for medical purposes. His research interests include computer-assisted language learning, effective use of ICT in English language teaching and curriculum design for English for specific purposes.
Learner autonomy, microcredentials and self-reflection
43John Clayton is a New Zealand Educator with extensive knowledge of deploying, using and evaluating learning technologies in both educational and workplace environments. He is currently the Director of the Emerging Technologies Centre at the Waikato Institute of Technology. He is an active researcher and his current research interests include situated cognition and workplace learning, reflective frameworks and the personalisation of learning, the impact e-learning technologies on learner achievement and the evaluation of workplace and educational environments using perceptual measures.Sarah-Jane Saravani is a manager of the Learning Hub at the Waikato Institute of Technology, Hamilton, New Zealand. She has responsibility for the provision and development of access to a range of information and learning resources, and for services to staff and students to support their development as lifelong learners in the 21st century. This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled 'Using self-reflection and badges in Moodle-based medical English review courses
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
