• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Graduate Medical Education >Knowledge Translation for Education Journals in the Digital Age
【24h】

Knowledge Translation for Education Journals in the Digital Age

机译：数字时代教育期刊的知识翻译

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Studies have revealed critical delays in translating clinical research findings into practice; they have also highlighted overly rapid adoption of new interventions with limited supporting evidence.1 This too slow or too fast adoption of innovation occurs in medical education as well. Examples include the slow adoption of problem-based learning in the 1980s, the standardization of patients for assessment in the 1990s, and the current rapid move to online teaching modules for a wide array of objectives.2–6 In colonial times, circa 1650, teachers used Horn Books—wood paddles with printed lessons—to help students learn. By the 1890s, our teaching strategies included chalkboards, paper, and pencil. In the 1930s, technology began to influence education with overhead projectors and classes broadcast over the radio.7 Now educators are using new digital connections to learners8 through crowd-sourced educational adjuncts,9 specialty blogs,10 wearable devices (eg, Google Glasses), webinars, mobile videos, and simulators for just-in-time practice.11 Traditionally, journals have moved at a more leisurely pace due to relatively slow review and print publication processes, restricted word counts, and difficulty presenting dynamic content.12 Now evidence in medical education is more rapidly accessible through e-print, ahead of publication alerts, e-table of contents linked to the article, and substantial online supplemental material. These changes enhance the translation of article content for immediate use. Some journals (eg, Academic Medicine) allow article images to be exported to a PowerPoint file, and may also provide a permissions link with options for posting online. Other online journals bypass the traditional journal review process and allow readers to judge articles and post comments; these processes may democratize the review process and broaden the concept of scholarship.13,14 Other experimentation by journals includes tweets and Twitter feeds, blogs, discussion boards, podcasts, vodcasts, and YouTube channels. The impact of this outreach can be tracked using alternative metrics, or altmetrics.15 Altmetrics data are derived from online discussions about individual scholarly articles from social media sources (Twitter, Facebook, Google+, blogs), the traditional media (newspapers, magazines), online reference managers (Mendeley, CiteULike), and public policy documents. This new version of an impact score is available for many journals, including the Journal of Graduate Medical Education (JGME). Yet there still appears to be a substantial gap between publication of useful educational developments and their replication in practice communities. The editors of JGME are interested in capturing the collective wisdom of our audience of diverse medical educators, who have had years of experience with educational interventions, including many never published. How can the collective experience and insights of medical educators be harnessed, in a reasonable time frame, to enhance readers' understanding of articles published in JGME? To date, JGME editors have experimented with interactive workshops at large meetings, used Twitter to highlight new findings and survey readers, video recorded interviews of authors, and, detailed in this issue, participated in a virtual journal club in collaboration with the Alliance for Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM).10 This project sought to create a forum for robust discussion among an article's authors, content experts, and a diverse community of medical educators. The virtual community created by using these mediums can “extend the conversation beyond the pages of the journal”16 and perhaps “share insights on items that would not typically make it into the journal's pages,”17 according to David Sklar, MD, and Kevin Eva, PhD, editors of Academic Medicine and Medical Education, respectively. Several articles in this issue bridge the divide between editor-reviewer-author and medical education resea
机译：研究揭示了将临床研究发现转化为实践的关键延误;他们还强调了越来越快速地采用了有限的支持证据的新干预.1这也是在医学教育中发生的太慢或过快的创新。例子包括在20世纪80年代慢慢采用基于问题的学习，20世纪90年代评估患者的标准化，以及目前在线教学模块进行广泛的目标.2-6在殖民地时代，大约1650年，教师用喇叭书 - 木桨与印刷的课程 - 帮助学生学习。在1890年代，我们的教学策略包括黑板，纸和铅笔。在20世纪30年代，技术开始影响教育，通过架空投影仪和广播电台播出的课程.7现在教育工作者通过人群源性教育附件，9种特种博客，10名可穿戴设备（例如，谷歌眼镜）使用新的数字连接。网络研讨会，移动视频和模拟器用于即时实践.11传统上，由于审查和打印出版过程，限制字数，限制字数和难以呈现动态内容，因此期刊在更悠闲的速度下逐步移动.12现在证据通过电子印刷，在出版警报之前，医学教育更快地访问，并与文章相关的内容e-table，以及实质的在线补充材料。这些变化增强了物品内容的翻译以立即使用。一些期刊（例如，学术医学）允许物品图像将要导出到PowerPoint文件，并且还可以提供具有在线发布选项的权限链接。其他在线期刊绕过传统的日记审查流程，并允许读者判断文章和发表评论;这些进程可以使审查过程中的审查过程和促进奖学金的概念.13,14日报的其他实验包括推文和Twitter饲料，博客，讨论板，播客，vodcasts和YouTube频道。可以使用替代度量跟踪此外展的影响，或者Altmetrics.15 Altmetrics数据来自关于来自社交媒体来源的各个学术文章的在线讨论（Twitter，Facebook，Google+，博客），传统媒体（报纸，杂志），在线参考管理人员（Mendeley，Citeulike）和公共政策文件。这种影响分数的新版本适用于许多期刊，包括研究生医学教育（JGME）。然而，在实践社区的有用教育发展和复制之间，仍然似乎仍然是一个实质性差距。 JGME的编辑有兴趣捕捉我们观众的多元化医疗教育工作者的集体智慧，他们拥有多年的教育干预措施经验，包括许多人从未出版过。在合理的时间范围内，如何利用医疗教育者的集体经验和洞察力，以加强读者对jgme发表的文章的理解？迄今为止，JGME编辑在大型会议上进行了实验，使用Twitter突出了新的调查结果和调查读者，视频录制的作者访谈，并在本期详细说明了一个虚拟期刊俱乐部与学术联盟合作参与了虚拟期刊俱乐部紧急医学（Aliem）的生活.10该项目寻求创建一个关于文章作者，内容专家以及各种医疗教育工作者的强大讨论的论坛。通过使用这些媒体创建的虚拟社区可以“扩展到日志第16页之外的对话”，也许是“对通常不会进入日记页的项目的”共享洞察“，”根据David Sklar，MD和Kevin EVA，博士，学术医学和医学教育的编辑。这个问题的几篇文章弥合了编辑 - 审稿人 - 作者和医学教育的划分

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号