A scoping review of self-monitoring in graduate medical education.

BACKGROUND: Physicians and physicians-in-training have repeatedly demonstrated poor accuracy of global self-assessments, which are assessments removed from the context of a specific task, regardless of any intervention. Self-monitoring, an in-the-moment self-awareness of one's performance, offers a promising alternative to global self-assessment. The purpose of this scoping review is to better understand the state of self-monitoring in graduate medical education. METHODS: We performed a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's six steps: identifying a research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting included studies, charting the data, collating and summarising the results and consulting experts. Our search queried Ovid Medline, Web of Science, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE databases from 1 January 1999 to 12 October 2022. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 5363 unique articles. The authors identified 77 articles for inclusion. The search process helped create a framework to identify self-monitoring based on time and context dependence. More than 20 different terms were used to describe self-monitoring, and only 13 studies (17%) provided a definition for the equivalent term. Most research focused on post-performance self-judgements of a procedural skill (n = 31, 42%). Regardless of task, studies focused on self-judgement (n = 66, 86%) and measured the accuracy or impact on performance of self-monitoring (n = 41, 71%). Most self-monitoring was conducted post-task (n = 65, 84%). CONCLUSION: Self-monitoring is a time- and context-dependent phenomenon that seems promising as a research focus to improve clinical performance of trainees in graduate medical education and beyond. The landscape of current literature on self-monitoring is sparse and heterogeneous, suffering from a lack of theoretical underpinning, inconsistent terminology and insufficiently clear definitions.

The voices of medical education scholarship: Describing the published landscape.

INTRODUCTION: The voices of authors who publish medical education literature have a powerful impact on the field's discourses. Researchers have identified a lack of author diversity, which suggests potential epistemic injustice. This study investigates author characteristics to provide an evidence-based starting point for communal discussion with the intent to move medical education towards a future that holds space for, and values, diverse ways of knowing. METHOD: The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of all articles published in 24 medical education journals published between 2000 and 2020 to identify author characteristics, with an emphasis on author gender and geographic location and their intersection. Article metadata was downloaded from Web of Science. Genderize.io was used to predict author gender. RESULTS: The journals published 37 263 articles authored by 62 708 unique authors. Males were more prevalent across all authorship positions (n = 62 828; 55.7%) than females (n = 49 975; 44.3%). Authors listed affiliations in 146 countries of which 95 were classified as Global South. Few articles were written by multinational teams (n = 3765; 16.2%). Global South authors accounted for 12 007 (11.4%) author positions of which 3594 (3.8%) were female. DISCUSSION: This study provides an evidence-based starting point to discuss the imbalance of author voices in medical education, especially when considering the intersection of gender and geographical location, which further suggests epistemic injustice in medical education. If the field values a diversity of perspectives, there is considerable opportunity for improvement by engaging the community in discussions about what knowledge matters in medical education, the role of journals in promoting diversity, how to best use this baseline data and how to continue studying epistemic injustice in medical education.

Which learning experiences support an interprofessional identity? A scoping review.

In recent years, health professions researchers have suggested that a dual identity that includes both a professional and interprofessional identity is essential to interprofessionality. This scoping review sought to describe the learning experiences that may support the development of an interprofessional identity, providing direction for future research. A scoping review was conducted to identify papers published between 2000 and 2020 that provided empiric evidence to support the impact of planned or spontaneous learning experiences involving two or more healthcare professions that fostered the development of an "interprofessional identity," or a sense of belonging to an interprofessional community. Twelve papers were identified for inclusion. Articles varied regarding both the professional groups studied and the developmental levels of their participants. A wide variety of learning experiences were described in the identified studies, including designed activities and programs, as well as those occurring spontaneously in authentic clinical environments. Examples of longitudinal and integrated programs were also identified. The construct of an interprofessional identity and its potential impact on interprofessional practice has yet to be sufficiently studied. The results of this scoping review suggest that a variety of experiences that occur throughout the professional development trajectory may foster an interprofessional identity. Longitudinal, integrated interprofessional learning programs may result in a more long-lasting impact on interprofessional identity and these types of programs should be the focus of future research.

Using the think aloud protocol in health professions education: an interview method for exploring thought processes: AMEE Guide No. 151.

The think aloud protocol (TAP) has two components, the think aloud interview, a technique for verbal data collection, and protocol analysis, a technique for predicting and analyzing verbal data. TAP is a useful method for those attempting to observe, explore, and understand individuals' thoughts, which remain among the most difficult research areas in health professions education. Notably, the long, complex history and heterogeneous implementation of variations of TAP can make it difficult to understand and implement rigorously. In this Guide, we define the TAP and related concepts, describe the origins, outline applications, offer a detailed roadmap for rigorous implementation as a technique for data collection and/or data analysis, and suggest opportunities for adaptation of the traditional TAP. We aim to arm researchers with the tools to implement a rigorous think aloud interview, while explaining its origins to empower them to adapt the traditional TAP intentionally and justifiably to modern health professions education research.

Delineating the field of medical education: Bibliometric research approach(es).

BACKGROUND: The field of medical education remains poorly delineated such that there is no broad consensus of articles or journals that comprise 'the field'. This lack of consensus indicates a missed opportunity for researchers to generate insights about the field that could facilitate conducting bibliometric studies and other research designs (e.g., systematic reviews) and also enable individuals to identify themselves as 'medical education researchers'. Other fields have utilised bibliometric field delineation, which is the assigning of articles or journals to a certain field in an effort to define that field. PROCESS: In this Research Approach, three bibliometric field delineation approaches-information retrieval, core journals, and journal co-citation-are introduced. For each approach, the authors describe attempts to apply it in medical education and identify related strengths and weaknesses. Based on co-citation, the authors propose the Medical Education Journal List 24 (MEJ-24), as a starting point for delineating medical education and invite the community to collaborate on improving and potentially expanding this list. PEARLS: As a research approach, field delineation is complicated, and there is no clear best way to delineate the field of medical education. However, recent advances in information science provide potentially fruitful approaches to deal with the field's complexity. When considering these approaches, researchers should consider collaborating with bibliometricians. Bibliometric approaches rely on available metadata for articles and journals, which necessitates that researchers examine the metadata prior to analysis to understand its strengths and weaknesses, and to assess how this might affect data interpretation. While using bibliometric approaches for field delineation is valuable, it is important to remember that these techniques are only as good as the research team's interpretation of the data, which suggests that an expanded approach is needed to better delineate medical education, an approach that includes active discussion within the medical education community.

I, we and they: A linguistic and narrative exploration of the authorship process.

INTRODUCTION: While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency-a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context-to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions. METHOD: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2). RESULTS: Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task-based and negotiated. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point-the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step-the enacted and narrated approach to the game.

Mentoring is in the 'I' of the beholder: supporting mentors in reflecting on their actual and preferred way of mentoring.

BACKGROUND: An important strategy to support the professional development of mentors in health professions education is to encourage critical reflection on what they do, why they do it, and how they do it. Not only the 'how' of mentoring should be covered, but also the implicit knowledge and beliefs fundamental to the mentoring practice (a mentor's personal interpretative framework). This study analyzed the extent to which mentors perceive a difference between how they actually mentor and how they prefer to mentor. METHODS: The MERIT (MEntor Reflection InstrumenT) survey (distributed in 2020, N = 228), was used to ask mentors about the how, what, and why of their mentoring in two response modes: (1) regarding their actual mentoring practice and (2) regarding their preferred mentoring practice. With an analysis of covariance, it was explored whether potential discrepancies between these responses were influenced by experience, profession of the mentor, and curriculum-bound assessment requirements. RESULTS: The averaged total MERIT score and averaged scores for the subscales 'Supporting Personal Development' and 'Monitoring Performance' were significantly higher for preferred than for actual mentoring. In addition, mentors' experience interacted significantly with these scores, such that the difference between actual and preferred scores became smaller with more years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Mentors can reflect on their actual and preferred approach to mentoring. This analysis and the potential discrepancy between actual and preferred mentoring can serve as input for individual professional development trajectories.

The Isolated Surgeon: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons in resource-limited environments often provide care outside the expected scope of current general surgery training. Geographically isolated patients may be unwilling or unable to travel for specialty care. These same patients also present with life-threatening emergencies beyond the typical breadth of a general surgeon's practice, in hospitals with limited professional and material support. This review characterizes the unique role of isolated surgeons, so individual surgeons and health care organizations may focus professional development resources more efficiently, with the ultimate goal of improved patient care. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of the isolated surgeon, reviewing 25 years of literature regarding isolated US civilian and military surgeons. We examined emerging themes regarding the definition of an isolated surgeon, the scope of surgical practice beyond current training norms, and training gaps identified by surgeons in an isolated role. RESULTS: From 904 articles identified, we included 91 for final review. No prior definition exists for the isolated surgeon, although multiple definitions describe rural surgeons, patients, or hospitals; we propose an initial definition from consistent themes in the literature. Isolated surgeons across varied practice settings consistently performed relatively large volumes of cases of, and identified training gaps in, orthopedic, obstetric and gynecologic, urologic, and vascular surgery subspecialties. Life-threatening, "rare-but-real" cases in the above and neurosurgical disciplines are uncommon, but consistent across practice settings. CONCLUSIONS: This review represents the largest examination of the isolated surgeon in the current literature. Clarifying the identity, practice components, and training gaps of the isolated surgeon represent the first step in formalizing support for this small but critical group of surgeons and their patients.

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. RESULTS: One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.

MERIT: a mentor reflection instrument for identifying the personal interpretative framework.

BACKGROUND: Essential to the professional development of mentors is making explicit and critically challenging the knowledge and beliefs underpinning their mentoring practice. This paper reports on the development of a survey instrument called MERIT, MEntor Reflection InstrumenT, which was designed to support mentors' systematic reflection on the how, what and why of their practice. METHODS: In 2019, a twenty-item survey instrument was developed and piloted. Initial validation data (N = 228) were collected by distributing the survey through the authors' network. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted and internal consistency reliability coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: The Principal Axis EFA with Direct Oblimin rotation (Delta = 0) resulted in four factors: 1) supporting personal development, 2) modelling professional development, 3) fostering autonomy, and 4) monitoring performance. The four factors explained 43% of the total variance of item scores. The Cronbach's alphas for the subscale scores were between .42 and .75. CONCLUSIONS: The MERIT can help mentors reflect on their beliefs and professional knowhow. These reflections can serve as input for the faculty development initiatives mentors undertake, which may ultimately improve their knowledge and skills as a mentor.

Why health professions education needs functional linguistics: the power of 'stealth words'.

CONTEXT: Language is one of the primary modalities for teaching and learning in the health professions in contexts ranging from the more formal teaching relationships of medical school to the guided practice of trainees through continuing education and the deliberate practice of lifelong learning. Yet linguistic analysis, with the possible exception of discourse analysis, has not become a core methodological tool in the field of health professions education (HPE). The purpose of this paper is to argue for the more widespread adoption of one particular approach to linguistics, one that examines less of what learners and instructors say and looks more at how they say it: functional linguistics. FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS: THE POWER OF 'STEALTH WORDS': This approach theorises and structures the functions of language, regularly focusing attention on 'stealth words' such as I, but and was. Drawing on a rich body of literature in linguistics, psychology, the learning sciences and some early work in HPE, we demonstrate how functional linguistic tools can be applied to better understand learners' and instructors' beliefs, reasoning processes, values and emotions. FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS AND REFLECTION: AN APPLICATION OF STEALTH WORDS: A brief qualitative analysis of one tool - analysis of the generic use of 'you' to mean 'one' or 'anyone' - demonstrates how functional linguistics can offer insight into physicians' bids for credibility and alignment as they think aloud about their clinical reasoning. FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS AND HPE: FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Finally, we offer suggestions for how functional linguistic tools might address questions and gaps in four active research areas in HPE: reflection; emotion and reasoning; learning in simulated contexts, and self-regulated learning. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that the words used by learners, instructors and practitioners in the health professions as they move through undergraduate and graduate training into practice can offer clues that will help researchers, instructors and colleagues to better support them.

Exploring researchers' perspectives on authorship decision making.

CONTEXT: Authorship has major implications for researchers' careers. Hence, journals require researchers to meet formal authorship criteria. However, researchers frequently admit to violating these criteria, which suggests that authorship is a complex issue. This study aims to unpack the complexities inherent in researchers' conceptualisations of questionable authorship practices and to identify factors that make researchers vulnerable to engaging in such practices. METHODS: A total of 26 North American medical education researchers at a range of career stages were interviewed. Participants were asked to respond to two vignettes, of which one portrayed honorary authorship and the other described an author order scenario, and then to describe related authorship experiences. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants conceptualised questionable authorship practices in various ways and articulated several ethically grey areas. Personal and situational factors were identified, including hierarchy, resource dependence, institutional culture and gender; these contributed to participants' vulnerability to and involvement in questionable authorship practices. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices were used for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalised engagement in questionable authorship practices by suggesting that, although technically violating authorship criteria, such practices could be reasonable when they seemed to benefit science. CONCLUSIONS: Authorship guidelines portray authorship decisions as being black and white, effectively sidestepping key dimensions that create ethical shades of grey. These findings show that researchers generally recognise these shades of grey and in some cases acknowledge having bent the rules themselves. Sometimes their flexibility is driven by benevolent aims aligned with their own values or prevailing norms such as inclusivity. At other times participation in these practices is framed not as a choice, but rather as a consequence of researchers' vulnerability to individual or system factors beyond their control. Taken together, these findings provide insights to help researchers and institutions move beyond recognition of the challenges of authorship and contribute to the development of informed, evidence-based solutions.

First-year medical students' calibration bias and accuracy across clinical reasoning activities.

To be safe and effective practitioners and learners, medical professionals must be able to accurately assess their own performance to know when they need additional help. This study explored the metacognitive judgments of 157 first-year medical students; in particular, the study examined students' self-assessments or calibration as they engaged in a virtual-patient simulation targeting clinical reasoning practices. Examining two key subtasks of a patient encounter, history (Hx) and physical exam (PE), the authors assessed the level of variation in students' behavioral performance (i.e., effectiveness and efficiency) and judgments of performance (i.e., calibration bias and accuracy) across the two subtasks. Paired t tests revealed that the Hx subtask was deemed to be more challenging than the PE subtask when viewed in terms of both actual and perceived performance. In addition to students performing worse on the Hx subtask than PE, they also perceived that they performed less well for Hx. Interestingly, across both subtasks, the majority of participants overestimated their performance (98% of participants for Hx and 95% for PE). Correlation analyses revealed that the participants' overall level of accuracy in metacognitive judgments was moderately stable across the Hx and PE subtasks. Taken together, findings underscore the importance of assessing medical students' metacognitive judgments at different points during a clinical encounter.

Development and initial validation of an online engagement metric using virtual patients.

BACKGROUND: Considerable evidence in the learning sciences demonstrates the importance of engagement in online learning environments. The purpose of this work was to demonstrate feasibility and to develop and collect initial validity evidence for a computer-generated dynamic engagement score based on student interactions in an online learning environment, in this case virtual patients used for clinical education. METHODS: The study involved third-year medical students using virtual patient cases as a standard component of their educational program at more than 125 accredited US and Canadian medical schools. The engagement metric algorithm included four equally weighted components of student interactions with the virtual patient. We developed a self-report measure of motivational, emotional, and cognitive engagement and conducted confirmatory factor analysis to assess the validity of the survey responses. We gathered additional validity evidence through educator reviews, factor analysis of the metric, and correlations between student use of the engagement metric and self-report measures of learner engagement. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis substantiated the hypothesized four-factor structure of the survey scales. Educator reviews demonstrated a high level of agreement with content and scoring cut-points (mean Pearson correlation 0.98; mean intra-class correlation 0.98). Confirmatory factor analysis yielded an acceptable fit to a one-factor model of the engagement score components. Correlations of the engagement score with self-report measures were statistically significant and in the predicted directions. CONCLUSIONS: We present initial validity evidence for a dynamic online engagement metric based on student interactions in a virtual patient case. We discuss potential uses of such an engagement metric including better understanding of student interactions with online learning, improving engagement through instructional design and interpretation of learning analytics output.

Measuring achievement goal motivation, mindsets and cognitive load: validation of three instruments' scores.

OBJECTIVE: Measurement of motivation and cognitive load has potential value in health professions education. Our objective was to evaluate the validity of scores from Dweck's Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale (ITIS), Elliot's Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised (AGQ-R) and Leppink's cognitive load index (CLI). METHODS: This was a validity study evaluating internal structure using reliability and factor analysis, and relationships with other variables using the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Two hundred and thirty-two secondary school students participated in a medical simulation-based training activity at an academic medical center. Pre-activity ITIS (implicit theory [mindset] domains: incremental, entity) and AGQ-R (achievement goal domains: mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, performance-avoidance), post-activity CLI (cognitive load domains: intrinsic, extrinsic, germane) and task persistence (self-directed repetitions on a laparoscopic surgery task) were measured. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was > 0.70 for all domain scores except AGQ-R performance-avoidance (alpha 0.68) and CLI extrinsic load (alpha 0.64). Confirmatory factor analysis of ITIS and CLI scores demonstrated acceptable model fit. Confirmatory factor analysis of AGQ-R scores demonstrated borderline fit, and exploratory factor analysis suggested a three-domain model for achievement goals (mastery-approach, performance and avoidance). Correlations among scores from conceptually-related domains generally aligned with expectations, as follows: ITIS incremental and entity, r = -0.52; AGQ-R mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance, r = 0.71; mastery-approach and performance-approach, r = 0.55; performance-approach and performance-avoidance, r = 0.43; mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance, r = 0.36; CLI germane and extrinsic, r = -0.35; ITIS incremental and AGQ-R mastery-approach, r = 0.34; ITIS incremental and CLI germane, r = 0.44; AGQ-R mastery-approach and CLI germane, r = 0.48 (all p < 0.001). We found no correlation between the number of task repetitions (i.e. persistence) and mastery-approach scores, r = -0.01. CONCLUSIONS: ITIS and CLI scores had appropriate internal structures and relationships with other variables. AGQ-R scores fit a three-factor (not four-factor) model that collapsed avoidance into one domain, although relationships of other variables with the original four domain scores generally aligned with expectations. Mastery goals are positively correlated with germane cognitive load.

Contextual factors and clinical reasoning: differences in diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning in board certified versus resident physicians.

BACKGROUND: The impact of context on the complex process of clinical reasoning is not well understood. Using situated cognition as the theoretical framework and videos to provide the same contextual "stimulus" to all participants, we examined the relationship between specific contextual factors on diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning accuracy in board certified internists versus resident physicians. METHODS: Each participant viewed three videotaped clinical encounters portraying common diagnoses in internal medicine. We explicitly modified the context to assess its impact on performance (patient and physician contextual factors). Patient contextual factors, including English as a second language and emotional volatility, were portrayed in the videos. Physician participant contextual factors were self-rated sleepiness and burnout.. The accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning was compared with covariates using Fisher Exact, Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman Rho's correlations as appropriate. RESULTS: Fifteen board certified internists and 10 resident physicians participated from 2013 to 2014. Accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning did not differ between groups despite residents reporting significantly higher rates of sleepiness (mean rank 20.45 vs 8.03, U = 0.5, p < .001) and burnout (mean rank 20.50 vs 8.00, U = 0.0, p < .001). Accuracy of diagnosis and treatment were uncorrelated (r = 0.17, p = .65). In both groups, the proportion scoring correct responses for treatment was higher than the proportion scoring correct responses for diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores that specific contextual factors appear to impact clinical reasoning performance. Further, the processes of diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning, although related, may not be interchangeable. This raises important questions about the impact that contextual factors have on clinical reasoning and provides insight into how clinical reasoning processes in more authentic settings may be explained by situated cognition theory.

Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories.

OBJECTIVE: To succinctly summarise five contemporary theories about motivation to learn, articulate key intersections and distinctions among these theories, and identify important considerations for future research. RESULTS: Motivation has been defined as the process whereby goal-directed activities are initiated and sustained. In expectancy-value theory, motivation is a function of the expectation of success and perceived value. Attribution theory focuses on the causal attributions learners create to explain the results of an activity, and classifies these in terms of their locus, stability and controllability. Social- cognitive theory emphasises self-efficacy as the primary driver of motivated action, and also identifies cues that influence future self-efficacy and support self-regulated learning. Goal orientation theory suggests that learners tend to engage in tasks with concerns about mastering the content (mastery goal, arising from a 'growth' mindset regarding intelligence and learning) or about doing better than others or avoiding failure (performance goals, arising from a 'fixed' mindset). Finally, self-determination theory proposes that optimal performance results from actions motivated by intrinsic interests or by extrinsic values that have become integrated and internalised. Satisfying basic psychosocial needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness promotes such motivation. Looking across all five theories, we note recurrent themes of competence, value, attributions, and interactions between individuals and the learning context. CONCLUSIONS: To avoid conceptual confusion, and perhaps more importantly to maximise the theory-building potential of their work, researchers must be careful (and precise) in how they define, operationalise and measure different motivational constructs. We suggest that motivation research continue to build theory and extend it to health professions domains, identify key outcomes and outcome measures, and test practical educational applications of the principles thus derived.

Exploring the Role of Peer Advice in Self-Regulated Learning: Metacognitive, Social, and Environmental Factors.

This Conversation Starters article presents a selected research abstract from the 2016 Association of American Medical Colleges Northeast Region Group on Educational Affairs annual spring meeting. The abstract is paired with the integrative commentary of three experts who shared their thoughts stimulated by the pilot study. These thoughts explore the metacognitive, social, and environmental mechanisms whereby advice plays a role in self-regulated learning.