In Our Own Time: Medical Students' Informal Social Studying and Learning.

Phenomenon: Social studying and learning (SSL) is any independent, elective, self-directed and self-organized approach to learning that involves students working with their peers for the purposes of study, learning, or revision. While in-class collaborative learning has been relatively well-explored, very little is known about how medical students engage in informal SSL or about the impacts it can have. The purpose of this study was to explore medical students' practices and perceptions regarding SSL, and the ways in which this shaped their overall learning experiences. Approach: A constructivist grounded theory study was conducted at the University of Calgary. Data were collected from 23 semi-structured student interviews, which were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed using iterative data collection, memo-ing, and focused coding. Findings: Despite SSL being a common part of students' medical school experience and something that was promoted by academic advisors, how students actually engaged with SSL varied substantially, including who made use of SSL, how they made use of it, the size and focus of SSL groups, how these groups functioned, and what individuals sought to get out of them. Some students found SSL helped them to be more efficient and focused in their studying, while others benefited from comparing their knowledge and skills with those of their peers. Not everyone benefited, as some students found SSL stressful, unproductive, or socially uncomfortable. While student engagement in SSL was an enabler of academic success for some it could also be an indicator of social isolation and low self-esteem for others. Insights: Understanding how SSL can influence student experiences has the potential to inform students how and why they might engage in SSL, and it can help educators better support their students, particularly in those schools that actively encourage SSL.

Professional learning and development of postdoctoral scholars: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of postdoctoral scholars are following diverse career paths that require broad skill sets to ensure success. Yet, most postdoctoral professional learning and development initiatives are intended for academic careers and seldom include professional skills needed to succeed in non-academic settings. Given that fewer than 20% of postdoctoral scholars will obtain tenure-track academic positions, there is a great need for postdoctoral scholars to prepare for a range of future careers. Creating professional learning and development strategies to address these concerns requires an understanding of current approaches, yet there is a distinct lack of literature exploring and synthesizing sources of evidence on the professional learning and development of postdoctoral scholars. The purpose of this scoping review is to examine, synthesize, and map the sources of evidence on professional learning and development pertaining to postdoctoral scholars. METHODS: We will perform a scoping review to identify sources of evidence around professional learning and development of postdoctoral scholars. Our search strategy, limited to English language, will include searching relevant disciplinary and interdisciplinary databases with no limitation on date of publication. We will conduct forward and backward citation chasing of included articles. Gray literature will be searched in electronic databases and websites of national postdoctoral associations. Search strategies will be developed using controlled vocabulary and keyword terms related to postdoctoral scholars and professional development. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, and two reviewers will independently screen full text to determine final inclusion. These data will be summarized quantitatively (using a simple numerical count) and qualitatively using thematic analysis methods. Through this process, we will summarize the current state of evidence around professional development and learning of postdoctoral scholars and identify current gaps in the literature, as well as the research areas requiring systematic reviews and/or primary research. DISCUSSION: Despite the growing numbers of postdoctoral scholars, there has been no synthesis of the sources of evidence of postdoctoral scholars' professional learning and development. In reviewing a wide range of evidence and integrating it into a manageable and meaningful whole, this scoping review will be a critical first step in understanding the professional learning and development of postdoctoral scholars. Our results will help inform future research and the development of a framework for postdoctoral scholar's professional learning and development.