教育学最新文献

Purpose: Given varying preference signal numbers and structures across residency specialties, this study investigates the impact of preference signaling on match outcomes in highly competitive medical specialties.

Method: Data were from University of Texas Southwestern Medical School's Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency survey of applicants to the top 10 most competitive specialties using signaling between 2021 and 2024. Bivariate statistical testing compared groups across categorical and continuous variables. Multivariate logistic regression compared outcomes between 10 or fewer and 20 or more signals.

Results: The dataset contained 4,469 applications from 4,391 unique students. Number of signals used did not affect number of overall matches (2,458 of 2,908 [84.5%] for 3-5 signals, 94 of 112 [93.9%] for 6-10 signals, 178 of 203 [86.7%] for 21-25 signals, and 585 of 662 [88.4%] for 26-30 signals; P = .08). Higher signal numbers were associated with significantly higher matching rates at signaled institutions (916 of 2,098 [37.2%] vs 525 of 662 [89.6%], P < .001). Away rotations (odds ratio [OR], 9.25; 95% CI, 6.37-13.43; P < .001), signaling gold (OR, 7.74; 95% CI, 3.85-15.55; P < .001), geographic connections (OR, 4.12; 95% CI, 3.01-5.64; P < .001), and signaling programs (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.43-4.68; P < .001) were significantly associated with matching. Away rotations were ranked as most important (β = 2.23) followed by gold signals (β = 2.05), geographic connection (β = 1.42), and program signals (β = 1.22). Program signals had a stronger impact for applicants with 10 signals or fewer vs 20 signals or more (OR, 5.99 [95% CI, 3.96-9.08] vs 3.00 [95% CI, 1.33-6.77]; P < .001).

Conclusions: Specialties with more signals favor successful matching to signaled programs, but signal effectiveness diminishes as quantity increases. Applicants should prioritize impactful strategies to improve their chances of matching.

Purpose: Clinician educators are essential to the academic medicine workforce, yet understanding how they assess their own teaching competencies is limited. The Clinical Educator Milestones (CEMs) guide growth across key educator domains, but their use and perceived relevance remain underexplored. This study aims to (1) evaluate clinician educators' self-reported performance on the CEMs; (2) examine differences by career level, specialty, and experience; and (3) inform faculty development efforts through a clearer understanding of educators' perceived strengths and gaps.

Method: Clinician educators from 9 US academic institutions completed a self-assessment rating their performance across 4 universal pillars and 11 educational theory and practice competencies on a 1- (novice) to 5- (expert) point scale in 0.5-point increments from August to November 2024. Descriptive statistics and mean difference tests were used to analyze variation across demographic and professional characteristics.

Results: A total of 484 responses to at least 1 CEM were received. Respondents rated themselves highest in commitment to professional responsibilities (mean [SD], 4.30 [0.68]), teaching and facilitating learning (mean [SD], 3.96 [0.74]), and professionalism (mean [SD], 3.93 [0.73]) and lowest in medical education scholarship (mean [SD], 3.11 [1.15]), program evaluation (mean [SD], 3.33 [1.03]), and the science of learning (mean [SD], 3.43 [1.10]). Statistically significant group differences were found by years of posttraining clinical experience (F2,413 = 16.87, P < .001, η2 = .076), years of teaching experience (F2,433 = 20.87, P < .001, η2 = .088), and academic rank (F2,403 = 13.96, P < .001, η2 = .065).

Conclusions: This study identifies key trends in self-perceived strengths and needs among clinician educators and highlights the limited awareness of the CEM framework. As institutions aim to build effective educator development systems, the CEMs can serve as a useful structure for tailoring support to individuals and identifying institutional needs.

Unlike standardized testing applications of validity, teachers need a simple and efficient way to reflect on the accuracy of the claims based on student performance, then consider whether the uses of those claims are appropriate. A two-phase reasoning process of validation, consisting of a proficiency claim /argument and a use/argument, is presented as a way for teachers to understand and apply the central tenets of validation to their classroom assessments. Since classroom assessment is contextualized with multiple purposes, each teacher is obligated to use validation for their situation. The accuracy of teachers’ conclusions about the proficiency claims, and uses, will depend on their skill in gathering supportive evidence and considering alternative explanations. Examples of the proposed classroom assessment validation process are presented.

Purpose: Workplace violence is prevalent in settings where health care practitioners are responsible for managing agitated patients and visitors. First-line management of agitation within health care is verbal deescalation. However, formal training in verbal deescalation is not standardized across health professions education (HPE), and consensus about best practices is lacking. This systematic review examines the characteristics of existing curricula within HPE that teach deescalation skills, assesses the research quality and strength of evidence of these studies, and outlines consequent best practices for teaching the skill of deescalation to health professionals.

Method: PubMed, EMBASE, ERIC (EBSCOhost), and Google Scholar were searched using terms related to HPE, aggression, and deescalation for work published from database inception to July 22, 2025. Studies on empirical outcomes from curricula designed to teach deescalation to health professionals were included. Included studies were assigned scores on the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and an adapted version of the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) strength of evidence scale. A narrative synthesis approach was adopted.

Results: Of 4,312 unique records identified, 56 studies met the inclusion criteria. Twelve had BEME scores of 4 or 5, indicating strong evidence. MERSQI scores ranged from 5.5 to 16.0, with a mean (SD) of 10.4 (2.5). Learning interventions were targeted to nurses, physicians, students, and hospital staff. The interventions with strong evidence all incorporated both didactic education as well as role-play and/or simulation for active practice. The Ten Domains of De-escalation by the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry and the De-escalating Violence in Healthcare Settings curriculum by the International Committee of the Red Cross were referenced by multiple studies.

Conclusions: Available literature suggests that the most evidence-supported way to teach deescalation within HPE is through a combination of didactic lessons and active skills practice.

This Viewpoint explores a novel and striking analogy between mitochondrial cristae and lunar footprints, highlighting both visual and conceptual parallels. By integrating metaphor, and connecting cellular architecture with human exploration, it illustrates how enduring imprints mark milestones in evolution and discovery. The analogy offers a perspective for teaching physiology that links structure and function with imagination and interdisciplinary thinking. Students can better appreciate how microscopic cellular features reflect evolutionary milestones while recognizing that scientific inquiry, whether at the cellular or cosmic scale, is driven by the same human desire to know and to advance.