Action Research and Distributed Problem-Based Learning in Continuing Professional Education

ABSTRACTInformation schools (iSchools) have grown along with heightened understanding of the rapid changes taking place in the information society and in the humanities. This growth has led to the characteristics of multidisciplinarity and the need for ongoing discussion and collaboration in information field (i-Field) research in terms of human behaviors and information technology. To promote collaboration in the context of research and education, it is necessary to understand the current activities of iSchools in relation to their collaboration patterns. This study analyzed the research patterns among iSchools at the macro and micro levels, and combined the analysis resultsFor the analysis,, 41 iSchools were identified from the iSchool directory. Co-authorship and an institution-profiling network were extracted from conference papers and posters presented at the iConference 2008-2013 to mine scholarly communication patterns. Social networks (friendship networks) among them were also extracted from Twitter by collecting their common followees to identify their interest in current public issues. The network analysis was performed at the micro and macro levels.In the micro-level analysis, the structures of social networking and scholarly communication among 41 iSchools were constructed and compared statistically by executing quadratic assignment procedure (QAP) correlation. The QAP correlation analysis determines whether a relationship exists between two particular nodes in two networks at the same time. At the macro level, comparison between the top interest in social networking and that of scholarly communication was performed by revealing top co-word networks. Additionally, co-authorship patterns and institution profiling patterns among 196 institutions, including the 41 iSchools identified in scholarly communication, were compared statistically to identify similarities and differences in communication patterns of iSchools compared to non-iSchools.The analysis provided evidence of the current prominent collaborating bodies and their neighbors as proactive actors accelerating scholarly communication and social networking. The social networking pattern and institution-profiling pattern were significantly related at the micro level, and the co-authorship pattern was significantly related to the institution-profiling pattern at macro-level. Additionally, iSchools that actively elaborate social networking and scholarly communication at the micro or macro levels were identified and compared to determine whether iSchools that could bridge other iSchools and non-iSchools in both social networking and research. The significant interest in social networking revealed in this study was related to IT trends and higher education while the research interest in the iField was related to linking information science to society, technology, and culture.Keywords: Social network analysis, Bibliometrics, Twitter, Social networking, iSchool, iConference1. INTRODUCTIONiSchools are recognized as an emerging name for information schools whose approach applies information science and technology to culture, education, and business (iSchools). Because membership and research activities of iSchools have expanded rapidly since 2003, it is important to define the major activities and research these schools have pursued to understand where they stand in the fields of research and education. Recent studies have examined the overall research activity and education programs of iSchools (Chen 2008; Subramaniam & Jaeger 2011; Wiggins & Sawyer 2012; Wu, He, Jiang, Dong & Vo, 2012) and these studies could be regarded as a reflection of the need for further research.The purpose of this study was to enhance the understanding of iSchools and their research activities by identifying their major interests in current issues and research. The researcher assumed that iSchools' social networking patterns could represent their interests in current issues, and publications could show their research interests and activities. …

Learning is important in a pluralistic democracy, to enable citizens to make informed decisions. However, with the rise of the internet and social media, we need more than ever to understand how learning is shaped by social context and intertwined with issues of identity and belonging. One theoretical framework that addresses these social aspects of learning comes from the work of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger on socially situated learning in communities of practice. This article focuses on what many would consider to be the darker side of learning—the rise of hate, disinformation/conspiracy, and insurgency in online communities. Specifically, it analyzes Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America by Joan Donovan, Emily Dreyfuss, and Brian Friedberg (2022) through the lens of Lave and Wenger’s social learning theory. Lave and Wenger’s ideas of learning as legitimate peripheral participation and the negotiation of meaning and identity in communities of practice provide analytic tools to help us understand learning in online communities, the recent “meme wars,” and their real-life consequences for individuals and our democratic society.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the learning experiences of a high performance, head baseball coach within a learning community. We drew upon the barriers and enablers of a learning community to structure the current study's learning community intervention. Our learning community was comprised of one collegiate summer league head baseball coach and three coach educators (i.e. facilitators). Data were collected via eight weekly learning community meetings (i.e. recorded and transcribed), the coach’s daily journal and post-learning community meeting journal, and the memory of his coaching experiences. The findings, which suggest a potential framework for sustaining an effective learning community, resulted in six themes (i.e. problem setting, problem sharing, questioning to prompt reflection, prescribed suggestions, collaborative solutions and psychological wellness) that describe the coach’s experiences both internal and external to the learning community. The findings are discussed in relation to research on learning communities, experiential learning and reflection. Furthermore, we provide implications for future research by considering the learning community’s influence on the head coach’s reduction of stress and the utilisation of technology to sustain a stable learning community setting.

Background and Purpose. While the integration of experiential learning with patients and clients into the physical therapy (PT) curriculum is beneficial to student learning particularly in the area of pediatrics, the implementation of such experiences can be extremely challenging. Telehealth is rapidly expanding given the emerging technology, health care needs for individuals in remote settings, and the current pandemic situation. The purpose of the present evaluation was to examine the perspectives of the students, supervising PTs and the caregiver on a method/model for the telehealth delivery of pediatric PT, and the collaborative experiential learning experience in this setting using a qualitative grounded theory approach. Method/Model Description. A 24-month-old boy with spastic hemiplegia was treated for 6 weeks in his home via Zoom videoconferencing in a collaborative clinical education experience. Interventions included constraint-induced movement therapy, bimanual training, dynamic balance training, and facilitation of postural control. Caregiver education was provided throughout. The chat and recording features were used throughout each session to provide direction, feedback, and education while minimizing the distraction during sessions. Semi-structured interviews were completed with the 2 PTs, 6 students, and mother after the experience. Interviews were transcribed and theme coded until saturation was achieved. A concept map was developed through consensus. Outcomes. Themes emerged for telehealth and telehealth learning experiences. Considerations included the home environment, technology, lack of physical contact and importance of verbal communication, preparation, instantaneous feedback, and active participation. The active participation of the caregiver seemed to empower the family and provide them with a therapeutic viewpoint. Communication via the chat feature provided a means for instantaneous feedback that was considered less disruptive to the student–family interaction resulting in student empowerment, confidence, and skill development. Discussion and Conclusion. The telehealth delivery of service seems to enhance the empowerment and buy-in of the patient/caregiver resulting in improved outcomes and carryover for PT. Telehealth PT experiential learning provides a venue for collaborative learning and enhanced student autonomy resulting in improved confidence while fostering student analytical skills, communication skills, and creativity. Telehealth PT provides unique opportunities for growth and learning in a collaborative learning experience and may also serve as a venue for clinical education experiences.

Presentamos, en el marco de los proyectos de innovación de la Universidad de Valencia, el análisis de una experiencia de escritura colaborativa en línea. Desde una perspectiva que reúne las tesis de escritura y evaluación como herramientas para aprender, se aplica una metodología de investigación-acción para el seguimiento de un proceso de aprendizaje colaborativo: escritura individual, con revisión y evaluación compartidas, a través de un diario virtual que recoge las sesiones presenciales de la asignatura Lengua Española para Maestros, de primer curso de las titulaciones de Magisterio. La muestra analizada, perteneciente a dos cursos académicos, corresponde a la actividad de 84 estudiantes, cada uno de los cuales moderó una conversación virtual con una media de 12-16 mensajes de autoría múltiple cada una, que fueron analizados mediante una técnica ad hoc de análisis de contenido. Como conclusiones más destacadas, los resultados han permitido identificar diferencias en el rendimiento asociadas a procesos de coautoría real favoreciendo la aparición de procesos argumentativos y reflexivos, y guía el trabajo de grupo hacia procesos cercanos a los esperados en las comunidades de aprendizaje. Asimismo, este trabajo invita a la reflexión sobre dos aspectos: el seguimiento de los participantes y la entrega de ayudas durante el proceso.

The previous chapter presented several active learning methods—that can be incorporated into the lecture to avert student passivity and facilitate students’ meaningful learning. However, there are student-centered instructional methods available in which active student involvement is the norm. The main ones are discussion, group work, “community of learners” strategy, role-playing, simulation, case-method teaching, problem-based learning, and experiential learning. Because these methods may introduce some chaos into the classroom and may lead to some uncertain learning outcomes, they are regarded as more “high risk”. None of these methods should be used solely during a whole lesson period. Rather, they should be integrated with one another and with the lecture method, to enliven it.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project has shifted the focus for accrediting residency training programs from structure and process to documented outcomes. A central part of the ACGME's Next Accreditation System (NAS) is “articulating milestones of competency development in each discipline.”1 Resident achievement of educational Milestones will be an indicator of the educational effectiveness of residency programs. Most specialties have developed their Milestones through a collaborative effort involving representatives from the ACGME, the pertinent American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) organization, the pertinent professional specialty society, and the pertinent program directors' association. In contrast, the approach was quite different for Transitional Year (TY) residency programs, which comprise only 1 year of accredited postgraduate medical education, where there is no corresponding ABMS board certification entity or professional specialty society. In addition, graduates of TY training programs are not expected to demonstrate sufficient competency to enter the independent practice of medicine, as is the case with other specialty (categorical) residency programs.

PurposeTo maximize the benefits of intercultural mentoring relationships, which are increasing in today’s diverse higher education environment, the current article conceptualizes the connection between intercultural mentoring and cultural competence among mentors and mentees as a learning process.Design/methodology/approachThe conceptual paper discusses the nuanced aspects of intercultural mentoring. Ultimately, the current article presents a framework for a bidirectional relationship between intercultural mentoring and cultural competence through experiential learning theory and intergroup contact theory, resulting in implications for practitioners and actionable research directions.FindingsThe article highlights the interplay and interdependence of cultural competence and intercultural mentoring through experiential learning and intergroup contact theory. Cultural competence influences the quality of intercultural mentoring relationships. Conversely, intercultural mentoring relationships can develop cultural competence in mentors and mentees through experiential learning, producing positive intergroup contact behaviors. Findings suggest the need for active learning and unlearning among mentors and mentees in intercultural mentoring relationships to maximize developmental outcomes (e.g. cultural competence).Originality/valueThe proposed framework emphasizes that (1) the possession of cultural competence is a critical success factor for intercultural mentoring relationships, (2) the development of cultural competence is an outcome of successful intercultural mentoring relationships, and (3) intercultural mentoring relationships should be regarded as experiential learning platforms that can produce positive intercultural traits such as cultural competence.

Learning communities have become an integral part of higher education. Numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of learning communities at colleges and universities. This study, extended over two years, is an in-depth analysis of a learning community program serving developmental reading students at a public, two-year college. A primary aim of the program was to improve students’ reading skills to increase student persistence. In this dissertation, mixed methods were used and data came from six sources: in-depth interviews with students, instructors, and administrators, focus groups with students, a content review of internal and external program documents, pre-post reading test, a student survey, and secondary data that were received from the college. Qualitative data indicated that students and instructors believed that many of the goals of the program were achieved, such as increasing student persistence, improving transition to college-level courses, heightening students’ sense of community, increasing students’ academic and social confidence, and improving students’ attitudes toward reading. Qualitative data also revealed obstacles that the developmental reading students faced: a lack of academic and social self-confidence, family responsibilities, work demands, problems with technology, and difficulty with choosing a career. The learning community program helped students to manage their obstacles in three vital ways: 1) learning to seek help from peers, instructors, and campus staff, 2) acquiring time management skills, and 3) receiving career guidance. There was less quantitative evidence of improvements of student achievement over time. The duration of the program may have been too short to allow for robust quantitative findings. However, quantitative analyses indicated that there were higher levels of involvement, persistence, and class preparedness for learning community students as compared to non-learning community students. Several strengths and weaknesses of the program were identified, and recommendations were made for the program and learning communities at two-year institutions. These recommendations included the following: 1) fully implement team teaching, 2) create and implement an integrative curriculum between courses 3) expand services available to students and require students to partake in some of these services 4) more thorough instructor training for learning communities, and 5) better assessment of the learning community program by faculty and administrators. If properly implemented, these recommendations would likely increase the effectiveness of such learning community programs. A novel combination of theoretical frameworks from the sociology of education literature was applied in this study to better understand learning communities: student departure theory, student involvement theory, forms of capital, and

This study explores how teachers in two primary schools in London interpreted and perceived their engagement in action research as a professional learning experience. The study also explored the factors that teachers perceive to impact upon their engagement in wider professional learning experiences in primary schools. This study is timely as there are few examples of research that have investigated whole-school teacher engagement in action research. As teacher engagement in research continues to be promoted at a national level, there remains a lack of qualitative research on the impact of engagement in collaborative action research on teachers within a primary school. This study is also timely because it has investigated theories of workplace learning in relation to conceptions of teacher learning experiences within a school. The extent to which the learning environments in schools afford formal and informal opportunities for teacher learning is presented as a factor for consideration. The study took a case study approach to investigating teacher perceptions of engagement in action research. Questionnaires with twenty-four teachers and interviews with twelve teachers across both schools resulted in qualitative data which was explored and interpreted for emerging trends. Data analysis was influenced by a constructivist interpretation of grounded theory to provide deeper understandings of patterns that emerged in relation to perceptions of action research and experiences of workplace learning. This study identified that there is a complex patchwork of influences that impact upon teacher engagement in professional learning, and that significant factors in this engagement include the expansiveness of the institutional learning environments and individual dispositions to learning. These factors influence individual teacher learning experiences in different ways. A model for teacher learning is presented in this study that reflects the key factors that need to be taken into consideration when planning for formal and informal teacher professional learning activities in primary schools.

Background: Biophilia is becoming an important theme in contemporary design practice. Research in this area has demonstrated measurable improvements in human health and wellbeing when built environments are able to connect people to nature. However, there is much debate about how design students can best learn to fluidly implement biophilic principles in their work. Purpose: This article describes an action research study conducted by design educators to evaluate experiential learning techniques in health care–focused interior design studio courses. The goal was to improve students’ creative synthesis in applying biophilic principles. Methodology/Approach: The author followed the four steps of action research—planning, action, observation, and reflection—in developing and evaluating a new experiential learning framework. An observational approach was used to assess student projects and the effectiveness of these teaching methods. Findings/Conclusions: Students who participated in the experiential learning activities demonstrated a relatively higher degree of holistic integration of biophilic principles in their design projects. Implications: While the observational findings are provisional evidence, these results provide insights into the advantages that experiential pedagogies may have in helping students to integrate and apply design knowledge. The ability to connect biophilic design principles to direct personal experiences appears to enhance creative synthesis in student work.

The article argues that collective learning plays an important role in the practice of teacher research, which has not yet been adequately dealt with in its theory. Lave & Wenger's (1991) theory of ‘Situated Learning’ is examined as an example for a conceptualisation of collective learning. In the concluding section, some provisions for ‘learning in communities’ in the practice of teacher research are discussed. Although the argument is made for the teaching profession, it is assumed that it also has some bearing on action research in other professions.

Before exploring the projected future of Sponsoring Institutions (SIs), it is important to understand their origins and development. Graduate medical education (GME) has relied on diverse learning communities to educate residents for unsupervised practice. As 1 such learning community, the SI has contributed to the education of residents and fellows by ensuring the provision of support systems, resources, and administrative structures. Through their oversight of GME, SIs have fostered clinical learning and working environments in which residents and fellows achieve educational milestones that indicate their ability to provide high-quality, safe patient care upon completion of their programs and throughout their professional lives. What follows is a brief history of institutional accreditation by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the process by which we have come to recognize the SI as that community necessary to form physicians.In 1982, the newly formed ACGME published its “Essentials of Accredited Residencies in Graduate Medical Education,” which included a set of “General Requirements” that established standards and responsibilities for GME programs. Part I of these General Requirements began with the declaration that “[p]rograms in graduate medical education are sponsored by institutions engaged in providing medical care and health services. The principal institutions for graduate medical education are hospitals.”2 In Section 1, “Responsibility of Institutions,” the ACGME outlined standards that remain at the core of the essential relationships and processes expected of every institution that seeks to educate residents: commitment to sponsorship agreed upon by both faculty and administration; distribution of resources for educational purposes; establishment of institutional policies by which program directors exercised various responsibilities for their respective programs; periodic analyses of each program's effectiveness in meeting its goals and objectives; provision of facilities and resources to support education; and maintenance of hospital accreditation.3 It is important to note that, at the time, these standards were not new to GME; they were based on well-established groundwork laid by the ACGME's predecessors in program accreditation, namely, the American College of Surgeons, the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Medical Association's Council on Medical Education, and the Liaison Committee on Graduate Medical Education. Each of these organizations had previously acknowledged the hospital's role as GME sponsor and had included some variation of these expectations in their respective requirements.To fulfill its accreditation mission, the ACGME delegated authority to specialty-specific Review Committees (RCs) that evaluated individual residency programs for compliance with both the General Requirements and specialty-specific program requirements. Although the ACGME's General Requirements acknowledged SIs and the role they played in GME, attention to how these institutions fulfilled their responsibilities was initially provided in the context of individual residency program review conducted by RCs. While these specialty-specific RCs made accreditation decisions independently of each other, each Committee's activity was reviewed periodically by the ACGME through its Monitoring Committee. As a result, in these earliest years of ACGME's development as an accrediting body, there was no process by which the institutions were reviewed separately from specialty programs, nor was there consideration of how a single institution demonstrated compliance with its responsibilities as specified in the General Requirements for all the programs it sponsored.Gradually, the ACGME and its RCs began to observe that noncompliance with program requirements often had, at least, some correspondence to areas of institutional responsibility identified in the General Requirements. In 1992, as a result of this increasing awareness, the ACGME approved a separate section of the General Requirements identified specifically as Institutional Requirements, along with a process for institutional review that was initially administered through the ACGME's Monitoring Committee. These Institutional Requirements elaborated on the standards that had been outlined in the original General Requirements. This initial institutional review process included a separate institutional site visit. On the basis of the site visit report and information provided in an Institutional Review Document, an institutional review administrator determined whether the SI had adequately documented and implemented policies in compliance with the General Requirements. The administrator then prepared a list of the institutions judged to be in compliance with the General Requirements. The Monitoring Committee reviewed documentation only from a representative sample of these institutions. Only 2 decision options were available. Institutions that received a favorable decision were given 5 years until their next review; institutions receiving an unfavorable decision were assigned a time frame for their next review, not to exceed 3 years. Three consecutive unfavorable decisions for an institution resulted in a loss of its ability to sponsor residency and fellowship programs.During this period, the growth of medicine was characterized in part by new specialties and subspecialties approved for certification by various specialty boards and for accreditation by the ACGME. The result was an increased workload for the RCs, due to the number of applications by academic medical centers and community teaching hospitals for new specialty and subspecialty programs. While members of RCs were expert evaluators of programs in their specialty, lengthier review agendas, coupled with the added need to understand complex issues from an institutional perspective, underscored the growing need for a separate RC to review institutions. It also became clear to the ACGME that a cadre of individuals familiar with GME from an institutional perspective, and with knowledge of the General Requirements, should provide an expert review for institutional compliance.In response to these internal and external factors in the health care delivery environment, in GME itself, and within its own internal structure, the ACGME officially constituted the Institutional Review Committee (IRC) in 1995. The IRC was structured in the same manner as the specialty-specific RCs, except with regard to appointment of its members. In contrast to the RCs, the IRC had no formal specialty board or academic medical society of individuals with leadership responsibility for GME at the institutional level from which to draw its membership. As a result, the appointing organization for the IRC became the ACGME itself, with the original members drawn from GME leadership across the country.The only options available to the newly formed IRC with regard to the review of SIs remained the previously used statuses of favorable and unfavorable. The outcomes of these reviews were not, strictly speaking, accreditation decisions, although common usage in the field often referred to them as such. Loss of the ability to sponsor accredited programs remained as the action after 3 unfavorable decisions were given to an institution. Although such a decision was never made by the IRC, it nonetheless highlighted the growing importance of institutional review. While the seeds of accreditation were sown, the time for official institutional accreditation would wait for nearly a decade.As health care delivery and funding became more complex through the 1990s, the Institutional Requirements became more detailed. Experience with the institutional review led the ACGME and the IRC to identify with greater specificity the various elements and relationships necessary for maintaining an effective SI in this environment. Managing GME relationships across the institution was an effort that assumed progressively more responsibility and importance. For example, in 1993, the standard calling for each SI to have a Graduate Medical Education Committee (GMEC) was added to the Institutional Requirements; in 1997, the appointment at each SI of a Designated Institutional Official (DIO) as chief administrator for GME was approved. The DIO and GMEC were charged with oversight of the SI's GME efforts. The DIO became the “designated” leader with whom the ACGME could communicate information that affected all programs in the SI, starting with the basic responsibility of receiving the ACGME's annual invoice for accreditation services. Eventually, the DIO became the individual in the SI who was recognized as having the authority to act on behalf of the entire ACGME-accredited enterprise. The DIO had responsibility for accreditation matters, and also assumed many locally defined duties commonly associated with management and supervisory oversight in a complex organization. The Institutional Requirements began to codify the relationships needed at the institutional level for support of the educational environment, and the formal structures that comprised the GME local learning community took shape.In the mid- to late 1990s, the ACGME underwent its first intensive strategic planning process. A central component of the resulting plan, which eventually became known as the Outcome Project, was initiated in 1999 with a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The central focus of this effort was the identification of 6 general competencies as organizing principles for specialty and subspecialty curricula. ACGME-accredited programs were expected to identify educational outcomes for residents and to evaluate their achievement based on the general competencies that were eventually codified into all specialty and subspecialty program requirements. During this period, the educational leadership role of the SI's DIO and GMEC became even more apparent to the ACGME, the IRC, and SIs themselves. The need for central oversight of program curricula and resident evaluation processes emerged as a critical institutional responsibility for maintaining overall educational effectiveness within each program and across the institution.After 10 years' experience observing the maturation of the institutional review process and monitoring the work of the IRC, the ACGME Board of Directors delegated full accreditation authority to the IRC in 2005. The IRC acted with this authority to accredit all SIs having 2 or more accredited programs. With this change, the IRC maintained the same structure as all RCs, with the exception of its member selection process, which remained open to nominations of individuals from the entire GME community.In 2007, the IRC completed a major revision of the Institutional Requirements in an effort to remove extraneous language and to reflect the increasing recognition of the SI's central role in overseeing GME. As further indication of the growing importance of institutional review, this revision did not occur in a vacuum. DIOs and GMECs had begun to report that areas of programs' noncompliance cited by RCs occasionally overlapped with citations at the institutional level given by the IRC. One reason for such overlap (and sometimes even dissonance or contradiction) occurred because the Institutional and Common Program Requirements had developed independently. Therefore, an ad hoc committee that included representatives from the specialty RCs and the IRC was created to reconcile these 2 sets of requirements. The result was that a major revision of the ACGME Common Program Requirements also occurred in 2007 and included a thorough reconciliation with the Institutional Requirements. This reconciliation initiative revealed how institutional accreditation gradually had come of age within the ACGME accreditation structure and at the grassroots level. Specialty-specific RCs accepted the IRC's expertise in institutional matters and were no longer compelled to cite expectations outlined in the Institutional Requirements.Consistent with the recognition of the importance of institutional review, the IRC chair eventually became a full voting member of the ACGME Council of Review Committee Chairs, thus assuring an opportunity for ongoing dialogue between the specialty RCs and the IRC. The relationship of program and institutional accreditation was forged; it mirrored the expectation of collaboration among specialty and subspecialty programs at the level of the SI, facilitated by the DIO and GMEC.Today, institutional accreditation is an integral component of the ACGME's ongoing strategic initiatives. With approval of its Next Accreditation System in 2011, the ACGME Board of Directors codified the responsibility of SIs for educational outcomes: “The ACGME accredits GME programs and SIs based on the demonstration of continuous oversight of processes and outcomes of education, and substantial compliance with accreditation standards, through the review of annually acquired information.”4 Effective institutional oversight of a single program or 100 programs is the expectation for institutional outcomes under scrutiny by the IRC as it monitors institutions on an annual basis. Recognizing this central role of the SI in monitoring outcomes, the IRC completed an extensive revision of the Institutional Requirements in 2013. This time, the revision focused on a major reordering and simplification of the language so that additional focus would be placed on demonstrable outcomes at the institutional level, even as the processes evident in the original standards remained.Yet another development in institutional accreditation occurred in 2014 when the ACGME, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) announced their agreement to form a single GME accreditation system in the United States. This decision allows graduates of allopathic and osteopathic medical schools to complete their residency and/or fellowship education in ACGME-accredited programs and to demonstrate achievement of common milestones and competencies. The move toward a single accreditation system means that many AOA-approved institutions and other entities that oversee AOA-approved programs have applied or will apply for ACGME accreditation as SIs. This landmark agreement has resulted in an expanded assortment of governing structures for SIs in which residents and fellows are educated. In addition to commonly encountered institutional models overseen by academic medical centers, community teaching hospitals, medical schools, and single-program institutions, newly ACGME-accredited SIs include osteopathic postdoctoral training institutions (OPTIs), which are educational entities that provide academic oversight and ensure GME resources for hospitals, colleges of osteopathic medicine, clinics, and teaching health sites, sometimes over large geographic areas.In 2012, the ACGME Board of Directors approved the ACGME's Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER) program, which “provides the profession and the public a broad view of SIs' initiatives to enhance the safety of the learning environment and to determine how residents are engaged in patient safety and quality improvement activities.”5 Although not an accreditation activity, the CLER program emphasizes the institutional relationships necessary to improve health care and population health.Sponsoring Institutions now define themselves in various ways, often departing from the model of the singular hospital originally identified in the earliest standards for accreditation. What has remained consistent throughout the development of the institution's role in GME, however, is that it is the organizing force that affects GME at all levels, and that creates space for relationships that ensure the quality of resident education.Sponsoring Institutions are currently in a state of accelerated evolution in response to major changes underway in the health care system and beyond. The next stage in the maturation of SIs will necessarily benefit from reflecting on where these changes will lead. It will require the collaboration of the entire GME community to understand how SIs can meet the needs of patients by creating physicians who are prepared to practice in 2025. As in the past, it is through these relationships that future SIs will realize our future vision for GME.

Predicting Satisfaction with Group Work Assignments

This research identifies important features of mathematics learning from the accounts of early school leavers. These students were enrolled in a Youth Reconnected Program at a Technical and Further Education [TAFE] college. Specifically, it examines the relationship between their experiences of mathematics learning in two different social contexts, the program and secondary school classrooms, the discourses and associated discursive practices of these two contexts, and the forms of identities of participation that are constructed in them. Drawing on a social theory of learning and critical discourse theory, the research identifies the processes by which membership in communities of learning is achieved and identities discursively constructed. It draws on the accounts of forty-three early school leavers and six staff members located in a Youth Reconnected Program, a program designed to re-engage early school leavers in education and or training, about their prior experiences of secondary school and their current experiences of TAFE. From these accounts, the thesis seeks to explicate their experiences of learning mathematics in both contexts and to consider the implications of different student experiences of learning for mathematics education. Critical discourse analysis provides the means for applying this framework to examine the discourses, discursive practices, identities, and forms of participation constructed in the accounts. It views the accounts as constituted by their social context. It shows how the language of the accounts works to construct particular versions of reality and how relations of power construct particular identities. It allows a richer qualitative exploration of the reported practices of mathematics classrooms with particular regard to linking the theoretical and practical concerns of this study. It makes transparent the relations between the social (including relations of power and domination), discourse, and discursive practice, thus enabling a more in-depth reading of the participants‘ accounts. Discourses about two different experiences of mathematics learning were identified—one about mathematics learning in the Youth Reconnected Program (TAFE) and the other about mathematics learning in secondary schools. The discourses and their associated discursive practices—differing application of instructional style, communication and interaction, source of authority, pace of instruction, grouping of students and assessment— were found to contribute significantly to the construction of particular student identities and forms of participation. Student experiences emphasised the importance of four characteristics for membership in a community of learners—mutual engagement, joint enterprise, shared repertoire and access. These characteristics and practices were shown to contribute substantially to the construction of identities of participation in mathematics learning for most of the students who participated in this study. There was strong evidence to indicate that small class sizes impacted significantly on student engagement and participation in learning. A crucial factor here rests with the role of the teachers and tutors and how, given the opportunities for reduced class size, they implement, sustain and maintain interactions with the students for effective teaching and learning to occur. If in this context, consistent interactions are provided that also includes clear and explicit explanations, discussion, and negotiation, students are more likely to maintain their interest and actively participate in mathematics learning. This study‘s significance is twofold. It lies in the critical importance of the issue it addresses—student participation in mathematics learning—and the articulation of a social theory of learning with critical discourse theory to enable a different and more effective understanding of the significance of discourses, identities and communities of participation in mathematics learning. Although the study cannot claim generalisability across other populations of learners or across all mathematics and TAFE classrooms because of the small select sample of early school leavers drawn upon, by highlighting these accounts of students‘ learning experiences in some mathematics classrooms and the TAFE program, and their associated experiences of them, it draws attention to a different perspective on mathematics learning. In this alternative framing, learning as a social process is contingent on access to the discourse of mathematics learning and the discursive practices that support learning, participation, and membership in a community of mathematics learners. An attention to the social processes of mathematics learning infers a significant role for mathematics teachers in enabling student access to certain discourses and communities of learning. Such a role is often neglected in current contexts of accountability that specify a focus on achieving syllabus outcomes.