Group run by academics from University of Bristol Medical School with an interest in Medical Education Research. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not of Bristol Medical School or the University.
BMERG publishes a new blog every Friday on a range of topics of interest to both medical and other educators involved in higher and postgraduate education, including publishing, building community, conference and event reports, professional development opportunities, hot topics in #MedEd and more.
You can search for keywords below, choose from the categories list in the left side bar or check out the latest blogs linked below
BMERG publishes a new blog every Friday on a range of topics of interest to both medical and other educators involved in higher and postgraduate education, including publishing, building community, conference and event reports, professional development opportunities, hot topics in #MedEd and more. You can search for keywords below, choose from the categories list in…
In this week’s blog, Dr Andy Bond reflects on how to get started in pedagogical research, especially when coming from a non-teaching background, highlighting some insights from experienced members of BMERG. I am a scientific researcher! This is ingrained into me as it was my career for over 20 years since starting out on my…
In the first of our BMERG Committee profiles, we shine the spotlight on Fiona Holmes, our School Education Director. Fiona is Associate Professor in Health Science Education and School Education Director. She is Programme Director of MSc Clinical Perfusion Science and Co-Director of MRes Health Sciences Research. During her long career as a neuroscientist she…
In this weeks blog, Dr Dani O’Connor shares reflections from the ASME Annual Scholarship Meeting 2025, exploring key themes of Artificial Intelligence (AI), assessment, and agency in health professions education. It highlights insights from presenting on AI’s impact on critical thinking, engaging workshops, and the importance of learner empowerment, inclusion, and wellbeing in educational spaces.…
In this week’s blog, Dr Andy Bond reflects on how to get started in pedagogical research, especially when coming from a non-teaching background, highlighting some insights from experienced members of BMERG.
I am a scientific researcher! This is ingrained into me as it was my career for over 20 years since starting out on my PhD ‘journey’ in 2003. It therefore came as a bit of a shock to the system to become a Pathway 3 member of the teaching staff at the University of Bristol, and feel like I had left basic science research behind. Yes, there is the chance to supervise student projects and live research vicariously through them, however it isn’t quite the same as being hands on, actually doing experiments for hours on end in the lab, with varying degrees of success. As teaching staff, we are required to complete our Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP). This introduced me to pedagogy and opened my eyes to a very different way of working, thinking and writing; pedagogical research values people’s opinions just as, if not more, importantly than “hard evidence”. Having purely been in the quantitative, basic science, school of research, I found the academic papers to be written in a very different style and tone that felt very alien, and not quite right to me!! This is where the dreaded imposter syndrome starts to creep in, and that sense you’re not doing things correctly, and you don’t quite know how to get started.
Colleagues introduced me to BMERG, and in particular the Journal Club. If I’m being honest, the imposter syndrome still continued for a while, with unfamiliar terms, phrases and methodologies being common place, however as with many things, learning through immersion fosters deeper understanding. I am now finding that pedagogical research (as a branch of social science) and basic science research share many similarities – forming research questions, gathering data (quantitative or qualitative), using reasoning, analysing results, and (hopefully) publishing the findings. Ultimately, both with the aim to advance knowledge.
To gain further insight for this blog, I asked some members of BMERG for their top tips for getting started, and have tried to summarise their insights below.
Collaboration
A common theme that emerged was that collaboration is key, especially when starting out, but also for the more experienced pedagogical researcher. In the early stages, teaming up with someone with experience, ideally that shares your interests, enables you to get feedback and validation for your ideas, but also to take on more ambitious projects, and increase chances of funding. Collaboration can also give you access to a wider group of students e.g. you may teach to postgraduates, but have an idea also relevant to undergraduate students, and need collaborators to help facilitate the transition.
Plan upfront
Another key theme was planning. All projects need to be carefully planned out in advance to focus the investigation, and start with a clear aim (the simpler the better) for what you want to achieve. Knowing the focus is vital, whether looking at teaching innovation (designing new methods of teaching to help students learn) or educational research (investigating an issue or challenge discovered when teaching). Both are equally valid, but require different approaches. Engaging with the ethics process early on helps to clarify your study design, and check the data you will receive is robust and reliable. It’s much harder to start with the methodology and work backwards. To prevent unintentionally marginalizing participants, it is vital at the research design stage to put the learners first; knowing who you are researching (considering inclusivity), and modifying research practices accordingly, rather than just accepting standard methods. Caution should be exercised at all stages of the project, from planning through to interpretation and analysis of results, considering the researchers beliefs or world view (paradigm), and their positionality (acknowledging how a researcher’s identity influences their research).
Use the resources available to you
In addition to the people within your network, and communities such as BMERG with its aforementioned Journal Club, there are a number of other Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) resources available to the new pedagogical researcher within the University of Bristol, under the Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching (BILT) umbrella (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning | Bristol Institute For Learning and Teaching | University of Bristol) e.g. Show, Tell and Talk Workshops, and the BILT Annual conference. Attending these events helps to widen your network, see what other research is taking place, helps to validate your own ideas, and gain confidence to undertake your own projects. Previous examples of published pedagogical research are an excellent resource, enabling you to see how other people structure their projects, and also their writing.
A final point suggested that has helped adjust my way of thinking, especially coming from a basic science research background, is to try to think of it not just as pedagogical research (studying something and trying to discover facts), but pedagogical insight (deep understanding). Put another way, research tells us what is happening, but we also need insight to understand why it is happening and what we can do about it. Looking at teaching practices through the insight lens can give a different perspective, and can open up alternative avenues for consideration.
So to sum up how you get started in pedagogical research, you just go for it, and you will find an extremely friendly and helpful community of like-minded people, that will support you, and help you build the confidence needed to do great things for the benefit of students. If anyone has further insights into how to get started on the pedagogical research journey then I would welcome your input via a comment below.
With thanks to Sarah Allsop, Sarah Mclaughlin, Fiona Holmes, Claire Hudson and Sally Dowling for their insights.
Author Biography
Dr Andrew Bond is a Lecturer in Cardiovascular Medicine, in Bristol Medical School, and Co-Director of MSc Cardiovascular Perfusion. In 2023 he switched to the Teaching and Scholarship Pathway at the University of Bristol, and his teaching role predominantly involves developing and delivering content on the MSc Translational Cardiovascular Medicine, MSc Clinical Perfusion Science and MSc Cardiovascular Perfusion. Andy recently joined the BMERG Committee, and sees it as the beginning of his pursuit of pedagogical research, and the chance to better understand how students learn and thrive. His hope is to integrate insights from this research into his own teaching practice, so that research and practice continually inform one another.
In the first of our BMERG Committee profiles, we shine the spotlight on Fiona Holmes, our School Education Director.
Fiona is Associate Professor in Health Science Education and School Education Director. She is Programme Director of MSc Clinical Perfusion Science and Co-Director of MRes Health Sciences Research. During her long career as a neuroscientist she enjoyed combining research with teaching, aiming to inspire the next generation of biomedical and clinical researchers. She has a particular interest in students’ academic and research skills development.
What was your first role or job as an educator?
I have been involved in teaching and supervising students for many years but my first formal role was as Co-Director of MRes Health Sciences Research over 10 years ago.
What inspired you to become an educator and/or education researcher?
I want to encourage and support the medical researchers of the future and hopefully instill a curiosity and passion for discovery science. I love working with students and see them achieve their full potential.
What challenges have you faced in your journey as a medical education researcher and how have you overcome these?
Making the switch from biomedical research (PhD and 20+ years of experience) to pedagogical research (starting from scratch, learning to appreciate qualitative research, developing more of a ‘social sciences head’ and finding my niche).
What is your current medical education research project on?
I am working with a colleague (Jody Stafford) on using desk-based simulation to support cardiopulmonary bypass training. With Gemma Ford and BMERG Committee members, we are piloting a project to embed the Bristol Skills Profile into academic personal tutoring.
Who are your medical education/education research role models?
My mum worked as a school lab technician and was full of ideas to add interest to the classroom (many projects were tried out at home from stick insects to eyeballs to hatching chicks). The school and university lecturers who stick in my mind (along with what they taught) were really enthusiastic and committed to our learning, with a bit of showmanship and eccentricity thrown in!
What would you consider your greatest academic success?
My first, first author paper – perhaps not my greatest academic success but it felt like it at the time.
Have you ever had a piece of work go wrong and how did you deal with this?
Yes! Who hasn’t?! This is particularly true of biomedical research which can be a roller coaster of highs and lows – you need patience and resilience and to try and let the highs carry you through the lows. You learn more from work not going the way you expect / hope – problem solving, criticality, insight. The important thing is that you do learn and don’t – to misquote Einstein – do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. I bang on about this a lot to my students!
What helps you to maintain your work life balance as a medical educator/researcher?
A nagging husband who thinks I love the University of Bristol more than him! To be more serious, work can be such a big part of your identity so it’s important to be doing something that you really care about. Prioritising family (I am bonus mum to 2 step-daughters – a primary school teacher and a nurse), friends and outside interests (travel, gardening and running) can enhance your A game at work.
What do you think will be the greatest change to medical education over the next decade?
At the moment I’m grappling with artificial intelligence (AI) and the challenges and opportunites it brings to teaching and learning per se. Besides this, it is essential to integrate understanding of the potential (and pitfalls) of AI to transform medical practice into medical education curricula.
What book are you reading at the moment?
I have recently read Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Garmus – after being fired from her job as a lab tech, chemist Elizabeth Zott uses her new job hosting a 1950s television cooking show titled Supper at Six to educate housewives on scientific topics.
What job would you do if you were not a medical educator/researcher?
I probably would have done something clinical / patient-focussed. My retirement job idea is to be a florist.
What three top tips would you give to new medical education researchers?
Collaborate: 2+ heads are better than one, there’s shared expertise and work-load and you are accountable to others which helps keeps you on track.
Just do it: Make a start – fail, flounder – but do something. If you don’t start you will never have the opportunity to finish.
Be a lifelong learner: Stay curious and open-minded, and being a student helps you put yourself in the shoes of your own students and be reminded of their perspective.
Where is your favourite place in the world and why?
Difficult to choose one favourite – lots of places hold special memories for all sorts of reasons – but I got engaged on the Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand which was pretty cool (literally!).
In this weeks blog, Dr Dani O’Connor shares reflections from the ASME Annual Scholarship Meeting 2025, exploring key themes of Artificial Intelligence (AI), assessment, and agency in health professions education. It highlights insights from presenting on AI’s impact on critical thinking, engaging workshops, and the importance of learner empowerment, inclusion, and wellbeing in educational spaces.
I recently had the privilege of attending the ASME Annual Scholarship Meeting 2025 in the vibrant city of Edinburgh. Held at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre (EICC) from July 1st to 3rd, the conference brought together educators, researchers, and healthcare professionals from across the globe to explore the theme, “The A’s of ASME – AI, Assessment & Agency.”
One of the most rewarding aspects of the conference was the opportunity to present alongside my colleague, Zuzana Deans, on a topic that is both timely and complex, the use of AI in education and its impact on critical thinking. Our session explored how generative AI tools are reshaping the way students engage with academic tasks, and what this means for the development of independent, analytical thought. We discussed both the opportunities and the risks, how AI can support learning, but also how it might inadvertently deskill students if not integrated thoughtfully. The discussion that followed was rich and reflective, with attendees sharing their own experiences and concerns around AI in the classroom.
Among the many thought-provoking sessions, one that particularly stood out to me was the interactive workshop provocatively titled “The Death of the Essay.” This session invited us to critically examine the traditional essay as a dominant form of assessment in health professions education. Through group discussions and live polling, we explored whether the essay still serves its intended purpose in an age of multimodal learning, digital fluency, and diverse learner needs. The session didn’t just critique the essay, it opened up space for imagining alternative, more inclusive forms of assessment that better reflect the skills and creativity of today’s students.
Throughout the three days, the programme was rich with intra-conference sessions, oral presentations, and e-poster discussions, all of which highlighted innovative approaches to assessment and learner empowerment. I was particularly inspired by the emphasis on learner agency, how we can better support students from diverse backgrounds to take ownership of their educational journeys. This resonated deeply with BMERG’s mission to amplify underrepresented voices in academia and research.
One of the standout moments for me was the sound bath sessions, a unique wellness initiative woven into the conference schedule. These short, guided meditations provided a welcome pause amidst the intellectual intensity, reminding us of the importance of mental wellbeing in academic spaces.
Networking was another highlight. The Welcome Reception on the first evening offered a relaxed setting to connect with peers and mentors. I had the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations about inclusive curriculum design, decolonising medical education, and the role of community in shaping equitable learning environments. ASME 2025 was a space where critical conversations about equity, representation, and systemic change were not only welcomed, but actively encouraged. I left Edinburgh with a renewed sense of purpose and a notebook full of ideas to bring back to my team and wider networks.
Author Biography
Dr Dani O’Connor is a Lecturer in Medical Education at the University of Bristol, where she teaches across a range of programmes within Health Professions Education and leads the online MSc. Her research explores gender bias and relational autonomy in clinical decision-making, as well as the impact of AI on critical thinking in education. She has published in the Medical Law Review and presents her work nationally and internationally.
It’s the beginning of a new academic year and our BMERG blog series kicks off with an introduction to our new BMERG blog editors – and a call for blog writers.
Following a refresh of the BMERG Committee and the opportunity to take on new roles, Dr Sally Dowling and Dr Andrew Bond have volunteered to be the new BMERG Blog editors. They will be doing this under the expert supervision of Dr Sarah Allsop. Sarah has overseen the blog brilliantly for the past few years, and Sally and Andrew are very grateful to have her expertise to draw on as they take on the role.
Who are we?
Dr Sally Dowling is a Senior Lecturer who has worked in health professions education since 2007, following a career in the NHS. She came to work in Bristol Medical School in January 2022 and currently holds positions in PGT programmes (Health Professions Education and as co-Programme Director for the MSc Reproduction and Development). She also works as Year 1 Student Choice Academic Lead on the MBChB programme. Sally has been a BMERG Committee member since 2022. She has been involved in several BILT-funded associate projects, including one looking at inclusive assessment. In 2024-25 and continuing in 2025-26, she is part of the Pedagogic research and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) culture project, working with colleagues across the university. She has an interest in supporting staff and student in writing for publication and has run workshops and written blog posts relating to this.
Dr Andrew Bond is a Lecturer in Cardiovascular Medicine, in Bristol Medical School, and Co-Director of MSc Cardiovascular Perfusion. He has over 20 years of experience as a scientific researcher in UK academia, undertaking and publishing a variety of research into atherosclerosis, paediatric heart surgery, islet transplantation for Type I diabetes, and bioengineering of blood vessels for heart bypass surgery. In 2023 he switched to the Teaching and Scholarship Pathway at the University of Bristol, and his teaching role predominantly involves developing and delivering content on the MSc Translational Cardiovascular Medicine, MSc Clinical Perfusion Science and MSc Cardiovascular Perfusion. He is co-lead for various units on the three courses. Andrew recently joined the BMERG Committee, and sees it as the beginning of his pursuit of pedagogical research, and the chance to better understand how students learn and thrive. His hope is to integrate insights from this research into his own teaching practice, so that research and practice continually inform one another.
What is a blog post?
Blog posts are short pieces of writing highlighting topics of interest, usually written in an informal, accessible or conversational style. Some blogs are focussed on a specific issue; others are more general. Writing a blog is a way of sharing your ideas, experiences and opinions – it also gives you a permanent URL from which your writing can be accessed.
What can I write about for in a BMERG blog?
The BMERG blogs are aimed at the medical education community at the University of Bristol and beyond. In the past some have been themed – for example about “Writing for Publication” or reporting on papers discussed at the BMERG Journal Club. We have had conference reports (such as this one) and advice on Academic Careers and Researcher Skills, and other staff development and teaching practice issues. Individual BMERG members have written about their research projects, events they have attended or activities they’ve been involved in. If you look at the BMERG Blog page of the BMERG website you can see the latest Blog posts, and search by topics or categories.
What will we be doing?
This post relaunches the BMERG Blog. Following this we hope to have a new blog published on alternate Fridays. To open the new series, we will publish topic blogs once each month and introduce a member of the Committee in the second blog. To whet your appetite – we have forthcoming blogs on the ASME conference 2025 and the Assessment in Higher Education Conference 2025, a blog on ‘Starting out in pedagogical research’ and introductions to the new BMERG chair and others on the committee. We’ll also be re-posting some earlier blogs about writing for publication and understanding Open Access publication.
Can I write a blog post?
Yes please! We would love to hear from anyone who would like to write a blog post for BMERG. We ask that you use this form to submit your details and the text of your blog. We will review all blogs submitted and let you know if any (usually minor) edits are needed. We’ll also let you know when we are scheduling the publication of your blog. Please let us know if you think there is a reason to publish your blog as soon as possible (for example, if it’s addressing a particularly current or timely issue).
In the next BMERG blog post Dani O’Connor will be writing about ‘Reflections from ASME 2025, AI, Assessment & Agency in Health Professions Education’.
In this week’s blog, Dr Simon Thornton reflects on his experience at last years GP Placement Capacity Symposium held jointly between Newcastle, UCL, Southampton and Bristol Universities, and thinking about the continued impact of the discussions held.
Medical Student Consultation Skills. Image (c) University of Bristol.
It’s now a year since the inaugural GP Placement Capacity Symposium, held on 12th June 2024. The event, hosted online, brought together over 100 delegates from medical schools across the UK in a shared effort to address one of the most pressing issues in undergraduate medical education: the growing difficulty in securing enough GP placements for students.
Across the UK, medical schools have been responding with creativity and determination to navigate placement shortfalls. The symposium was the brainchild of Dr Mike Harrison, NIHR doctoral fellow at the University of Newcastle, working in collaboration with colleagues from UCL, the University of Southampton, and the University of Bristol. Their aim, to provide a platform to share the innovations that are helping ease the strain on GP placement capacity.
The event itself was a lively showcase of 11 elevator-pitch presentations, followed by thoughtful Q&A. Innovations ranged from the technological—such as using smart glasses for remote teaching from Ukraine—to political advocacy, including efforts to engage MPs on the realities facing undergraduate GP education.
Several strong themes emerged from the symposium and have continued to shape discussion and development since:
1. Space and Time Constraints
These were—and remain—some of the most fundamental barriers to expanding GP placement capacity. In response, we saw examples like the Sunderland initiative using sessional GPs and vacant NHS Property Services buildings for dedicated teaching clinics. Brighton’s model, offering students out-of-area placements across the UK, continues to offer flexibility and relieve pressure on local practices.
2. Expanding the Supervisory Pool
With fewer GPs and a more diverse primary care workforce, schools have had to think differently about who can deliver teaching. Newcastle reported promising outcomes from involving GP trainees in student education, now contributing 5–10% of teaching. They also shared an innovative frailty clerkship led by a nurse practitioner—an example of how interdisciplinary models can support supervision. This year at Bristol, we’ve hosted our first pair of GP trainees in the GP teaching team.
3. Embracing Technology
Smart glasses made headlines during the symposium, allowing students to experience remote consultations not just within the UK, but internationally offering a scalable solution to some logistical placement challenges.
4. Rethinking Timing
St George’s highlighted their use of out-of-hours placements—a necessary evolution to cope with daytime constraints. Over the past year, other schools have begun exploring similar strategies, offering students exposure to general practice during evenings and weekends.
5. Cultural and Professional Considerations
Perhaps one of the most thought-provoking points came from a recent survey discussed at the symposium: some GP practices are hesitant to accept students due to concerns around a perceived ‘erosion of professional behaviour’, fearing the placement of a ‘problem student.’ This insight sparked important conversations and research ideas.
Looking Ahead
Twelve months on, it’s clear the symposium did more than just spotlight innovation—it catalysed collaboration and ongoing dialogue. Many of the ideas shared on that day have seeded further projects.
There is, of course, much more to do. But one year after that first national coming-together, there’s a growing sense of momentum—and a shared commitment to ensuring medical students can continue to learn in general practice, despite the challenges.
Contributing to our BMERG blog series on building community, our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussions at our journal club about co-learning and co-teaching.
Paper reviewed: Claessen, Roy J M et al. “Co-learning and co-teaching in a newly introduced research learning community.” The clinical teacher vol. 21,3 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13683
I really enjoyed discussing and reflecting on this paper. It captures what is great about our Journal Club; taking a small break in your day to chat about research with colleagues, and generating new ideas that could be applied to your own teaching practice at the same time!
First, I’ll give an overview of the publication, followed by key takeaways from our discussion.
What was the research?
The research is based within a Dutch Medical School, and the paper evaluates the move from traditional research project supervision (one-to-one) to a more collaborative model involving co-learning and co-teaching, something they call Research Learning Communities (RLCs). The format paired small groups of students with two teaching staff and a floating ‘research expert’ (visualised in one of the paper’s figures). This idea arose from the flip to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, however the emphasis of the paper is on collaborative, rather than online, learning.
Before reading the full article, I checked a couple of definitions to ensure I fully understood their approach. Here they are, in case you are also unsure!
Co-learning – breaching the traditional teacher-student hierarchy, and everyone is considered a learner. Knowledge is constructed together, with all participants contributing their expertise and experience.
Co-teaching – multiple educators collaborating to plan and deliver teaching based on their different expertise. This enhances the student experience and supports ongoing professional development for staff.
Essentially, the RLCs are a highly collaborative approach in which students learn from teachers, teachers learn from students, students learn from each other, and teachers also learn from each other – that’s a lot of learning! I really liked the idea and was keen to read on.
What were the findings?
The study assessed both student learning (in terms of research skills) and the perceived value of the collaborative learning. They collected research reports and reflections from students and conducted focus groups with both staff and students.
Learning goals around research skills were met. Students found the structure supportive and valued peer-learning, reporting that they learned beyond their individual topic. Educators also reported that the structure supported their professional development and recognised benefits for students; although they were unsure whether the approach was time-efficient overall.
Why did this study resonate?
The co-learning model mimics a real-world research team, supporting the development of teamworking and research skills in authentic contexts. Co-creation with students, peer-learning, and authentic learning align with current pedagogic trends, and also with the ‘student-centred’ pillar of our institutional education strategy.
At the same time, there are ongoing discussions about reducing staff workload while maintaining the quality of teaching, plus an increased demand for research projects. The study sparked particular interest as it suggested ways to rethink research supervision while increasing authenticity.
How could this model be applied or adapted for our own practice?
Many features of this approach are already evident within teaching in the Bristol Medical School, such as case-based learning, group projects for ‘Student Choice’, and other small-group activities. After identifying these, we applied similar principles to research projects in both undergraduate and postgraduate contexts:
Facilitating group themes:A group of students work on a broad, overarching theme, with students pursuing individual but linked research questions within that theme. The collaborative work could involve exploring the wider topic and co-creating individual sub-projects.
Adjunctive research collaboratives:Alternatively, collaboratively learning groups could be created for students undertaking similar types of research (e.g. systematic review, data analysis or lab projects). The collaborative group would foster development of research skills, but the projects themselves could be different.
Potential benefits:
Multiple ‘supervisors’ and peer-interactions may improve student support and mitigate the common issue that some primary supervisors are less engaged than others…..
I often find myself saying the same things again and again in one-to-one supervisory meetings with students—group formats could definitely reduce this inefficiency!
Research projects can feel isolating and lonely for students, as they often involve extended periods of independent study. Collaborative models would introduce peer interaction and support.
Additional reflections and comments
Describing the activities: Details of the group activities were somewhat vague, at least to me. Specific examples of how a single research project was supported within the RLCs would help readers understand how this model could be applied.
Inclusivity concerns: We questioned whether all students would benefit equally from this approach, or whether it inadvertently disadvantages more introverted students or those who prefer more structured guidance.
The digital context: While the redesign was partially in response to COVID-19, the digital aspects were not well explored in the paper.
Overall reflections
This paper invites us to explore co-learning and co-teaching in greater depth, and has already prompted me to generate ideas that could be integrated into my own teaching practice. The overall approach aligns well with contemporary trends in education and facilitated valuable conversations about sustainable and inclusive project supervision in higher education.
If you already integrate collaborative elements into student research projects, I’d love to hear about your experiences and what works well for you!
Author Biography
Dr Claire Hudson is a Lecturer on the Teaching and Scholarship Pathway within the Bristol Medical School. Claire’s early research career was in biomedical sciences, but she has now made a transition to pedagogic research. She has a special interest in student autonomy and the use of reflective practice in developing academic and feedback literacy skills, as well as exploring MSc student skills development in different demographic groups.
The latest blog is a conference report from Dr Shiras Patel, reflecting on the Teaching, Innovation, and Collaboration for CTFs (TICC) Conference, held in Bristol in April this year.
The Warm Welcome
On Friday 25th April 2025, the halls of the Wills Memorial Building at the University of Bristol were buzzing with activity—not only from students preparing for their final examinations, but also from the Teaching, Innovation, and Collaboration for CTFs (TICC) Conference. This year’s event was bigger than ever, building on last year’s regional success to welcome over 120 attendees from across the UK.
Even before the official welcome, the atmosphere was lively, with Clinical Teaching Fellows (CTFs) from various institutions exchanging ideas about their innovative teaching methods and the challenges they had overcome.
The conference began with a warm welcome from Dr David Rogers, Programme Co-director at the Bristol Medical School, and Dr Sam Chumbley, TICC Director.
This was followed by a captivating keynote delivered by Dr SanYuMay Tan (University of Oxford), focusing on sustainability in medical education. Her thought-provoking talk highlighted the crucial need to prepare medical students to be sustainable clinicians, capable of navigating the healthcare challenges of the future.
A New Addition for 2025
Inspired by their ASME sponsors, the conference introduced short communication presentations, providing CTFs with a platform to showcase their research and innovation projects. Topics ranged from gamification in learning to equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), simulation-based education, and pastoral care. The impressive volume of submissions led to a four-room parallel session format, allowing attendees to curate their own experience based on individual interests.
Lunch and Networking
Over lunch, the energy remained high as attendees engaged in enthusiastic discussions about the morning’s presentations and how the ideas could be implemented within their own institutions. The high-quality catering certainly helped, but it was the lively, academic conversations that seem to fuel the room.
Afternoon Workshops
Three concurrent workshops kicked off the afternoon sessions:
Dr David Rogers and Eliza Burdass (University of Bristol) led an insightful workshop on practical strategies for effective teaching amidst busy clinical schedules. The dual perspectives of a curriculum designer and a medical student offered a complementary and holistic view.
Dr SanYuMay Tan returned with Dr Theresa Martin (University of Portsmouth) to run a workshop on integrating sustainability into OSCE station design, extending the themes from the morning keynote.
Dr Ourania Varsou (University of Glasgow) delivered a hands-on, forward-looking session on AI in medical education, exploring its practical applications in everyday teaching.
Oral Presentations and Final Sessions
In the late afternoon, additional oral presentations highlighted outstanding work being done by CTFs nationwide, addressing some of today’s most pressing challenges in medical education.
The day concluded with two final parallel sessions:
A powerful workshop on Teaching in Low Resource Settings led by Dr Julie Thacker and Dr Ian Fussell (University of Exeter), sharing inspirational insights into delivering medical education without the typical technological support many rely on.
A popular Q&A panel featuring experienced educators who discussed career pathways in medical education, offering candid reflections on balancing academic and personal commitments.
Closing Moments
The conference wrapped up with a prize ceremony celebrating outstanding presentations, followed by closing remarks that set sights on the future—namely, the ambition to make TICC 2026 an international event, a goal that was met with great enthusiasm. A post-conference social offered a relaxed space for continued networking and reflection.
Final Thoughts
TICC 2025 was an overwhelming success. It showcased the strength, creativity, and dedication of the CTF community and left many—including myself—energised and inspired for the year ahead. I eagerly look forward to seeing how the conference evolves in 2026 and beyond.
With the end of the academic year rapidly approaching, in this blog, Sarah Allsop challenges us to think about scheduling a session of reflection through 3 lenses: retrospective, introspective and prospective and how these can help us to learn, focus and plan.
So, we have made it to the end of another academic year. This may lead to a mixture of excitement, anticipation, or simply relief! Often, we start to think about taking a break, planning summer conference trips and projects, as well as shifting focus to the next academic year.
A really useful task that we can schedule for ourselves at this time of year is reflection. For some, this will come very naturally, for others perhaps not so much, but regardless of your viewpoint on reflective practice, it can help to have a focussed approach.
There are a multitude of different reflective tools and models to support reflective practice such as Gibbs, Kolb etc, and I recently read an interesting summary blog by Tom Barrett, ‘From Awareness to Action: A Complete Guide to Reflective Practice Cycles for Teachers‘. I was particularly drawn to the ideas and simplicity of a model they describe which breaks reflective practice into three parts: retrospective, introspective and prospective reflection.
Let’s take a look together at how to use these three aspects to support a focussed actionable reflection process.
Retrospective reflection – What have I learnt?
Looking back over past experience may be what you first think about when you read the term ‘reflection’. This process of evaluating what has gone well and what things we might do differently in future is a great learning technique. However, if we reflect on a whole academic year, that can be challenging.
One way to compartmentalise the process is to use the “Start-Stop-Continue” model.
What do you want to start doing?
What do you want to stop doing?
What do you want to keep doing?
This gives you three categories allowing you to: celebrate your successes, consider how to learn from challenging experiences and to focus in on your future goals. This gives you a considered plan which you can take to an annual review or meeting with your line manager, and discuss your current journey in a constructive and forward-thinking way.
Introspective reflection – What do I want?
Once we have identified what we want to learn from past experiences, the next step is thinking about how we feel, using introspection to look inward. Thinking deeply about our feelings in relation to our work, can help us focus on why certain aspects of our jobs give us the most joy, the so called ‘finding our passion’. This can be done with reference to different time points, for example, how did a past experience make me feel, or how do I feel right now?
One of the most popularised ways of conceptualising this, is a diagram by Marc Winn based on the Japanese concept of ‘Ikigai’ (roughly translated to ‘reason for being’). The diagram proposes your reason for being or sense of purpose at work, can be found at the intersection of what you love, what you are good at, what the world needs and what you can be paid for. Thinking about this in the context of your current role can help you to think about what you want and hope for from your career, identifying potential gaps in your development, and thinking about how to move towards your future vision.
Prospective reflection – What’s next?
From thinking about what we want, prospective reflection needs to occur both at a personal level – where am I headed and how do I get there, but also what does the future landscape of my discipline look like. This forward thinking phase of the reflective process is where you put your learning, focus, priorities and ambitions into action.
Prospective reflection may be as simple as thinking about where you want to be in six months, 12 months, five years, 10 years etc., but you also need to think about where your discipline is headed. What is going to be needed for the future and how do you make sure that you are well placed to serve that future. To make prospective reflection actionable, you really only need to think about one thing – the next step. So, we end with a simple question to move your reflection to action:
What is the next actionable step that can move you forward in your academic journey?
—
Have you had success using reflective techniques? What are your favourite focussed reflection techniques and why? Comment below:
The BMERG blog series on building community continues to grow, with a review of our recent journal club publication. Our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussion from our May journal club on the establishment of medical education research labs.
Since my colleagues launched the Bristol Medical Education Research Group (BMERG), our discussions have focused on creating a productive research environment and increasing the impact of our work as education researchers.
Education research often struggles to get sufficient recognition and lucrative funding compared to basic and clinical sciences research, and many believe basic science research is held in higher esteem and more valued by their institutions.
This paper resonated with members of the BMERG Journal Club, as the authors echo some of these concerns and challenges. The authors offer their perspective on the significance of medical education research labs and offer a practical roadmap for their establishment and success.
Publication overview
The paper falls under the category of ‘Scholarly Perspective’, and we discussed that it shouldn’t be interpreted as an objective literature review or primary research. The team of authors have presented a collection of case studies from their own experiences, identifying five main medical education research structures:
single principal investigator (PI) labs
multiple PI labs
research centres
research collaboratives
research networks
The contributors were assembled through existing professional relationships, therefore we questioned whether the categories presented fully reflect the entire range of medical education research structures. However, we accepted this was their ‘Scholarly Perspective’, and we think they effectively conveyed their vision for the future of medical education research, with research labs being central to this.
What is a medical education research lab?
This is an important question! The authors define a lab as,
A distinct team within a department or institution led by single or multiple PIs who focus on specific educational problems
Labs differ from larger research centres, collaboratives, and networks in their scale and scope. The paper provides illustrative case examples to demonstrate how different research structures function in practice, and we found this information both useful and well-presented. As all authors are based in the US, we questioned whether the same structures could be identified in the UK.
What are the benefits of an medical education research lab?
The authors outline several key elements that they consider contribute to the success of medical education research labs:
Lab Identity: The lab should have a focussed line of research that can validate the career path of the PI(s).
Lab designation: The ‘lab’ brand helps signal the importance and legitimacy of the research being conducted, since the lab structure is generally well-understood within medicine. The identity and designation together can attract collaborators, funding, and institutional support.
Infrastructure: Proper infrastructure is crucial; and includes not only physical space and administrative support but also access to necessary research tools and technologies.
Training: Research labs should serve as incubators for new talent. They should provide training and mentorship for students and junior staff, fostering the next generation of medical education researchers.
Did we agree?
Point 2. above on lab designation, sparked our next discussion: do we agree with using the term “lab” in the context of medical education?
We had an interesting debate about the appropriateness of making comparisons to a scientific research environment, and interestingly there was a split of opinion between our qualitative and quantitative colleagues!
We certainly didn’t agree that this nomenclature was essential for research legitimacy (as suggested by the authors), and we descended into brainstorming for other potential terminology for a collection of education researchers; “hub”, “village”, “incubator”, “collective” and even “tribe” were suggested!
Overall reflections
In summary, the authors present a compelling argument for the establishment of research labs as a means to overcome the challenges faced by medical education researchers; providing structured support, fostering collaboration, training new researchers, enhancing research productivity, and elevating the status of medical education research within academic institutions. The paper offers practical insights into the design of these labs, making it a useful resource for anyone involved in medical education research. It would be interesting to find out more about whether the institutional barriers to establishing such groups are the same in the US as the UK, and within the BMERG Journal Club, we are still on the fence with the word ‘lab’!
More about this blog’s author:
Dr Claire Hudson is a Lecturer on the Teaching and Scholarship Pathway within the Bristol Medical School. Her early research career was in biomedical sciences, but she has now made a transition to pedagogic research. She has a special interest in student autonomy and the use of reflective practice in developing academic skills, as well as exploring MSc student skills development in different demographic groups.
In this blog, Dr Grace Pearson reflects on her recent TASME Mentorship Prize from the Association for the Study of Medical Education. She describes how this award has supported her work in collaboration with the University of Zimbabwe Medical School.
Dr Grace Pearson with Dr Zaranyika, junior doctors and medical students working in the Faculty of Medicine in Harare (March 2024)
I was absolutely delighted to receive the 2024 TASME Mentorship Prize, which I’ve put towards my ongoing collaboration with the University of Zimbabwe Medical School and Parienyatwa Hospital in Harare.
The population of Africa is ageing faster than any other continent, yet teaching in ageing and geriatric medicine is lacking in many countries. In response to the Zimbabwe Healthy Ageing Strategy, and with the mentorship of Dr Trust Zaranyika, we are working to implement innovative undergraduate and postgraduate training in geriatric medicine at UZ, which will equip their workforce with the knowledge and skills required to care for their growing population of older people.
I was privileged to visit Dr Zaranyika, junior doctors working in the Faculty of Medicine, and medical students (all pictured) on a recent scoping visit to Harare in March 2024. I was touched by their warm welcome and invigorated by their keen interest in geriatric medicine.
To ensure that any resources generated are authentic, applicable, and sustainable, I attended ward rounds, clinics, meetings, and teaching to understand when, where, and how training in geriatrics might ‘fit’. It was a pleasure to be part of such a supportive and rich learning environment, where teams regularly meet together to discuss clinical cases, and I was myself reminded of how best to incorporate teaching moments into every day clinical practice.
It was my pleasure to pilot teaching on ‘core’ geriatrics topics, such as frailty, falls, and delirium, and I found it refreshing to revisit my own ‘bread and butter’ from the ground up. I made so many friends in such a short time, and I really can’t wait to return to Harare to develop and implement more teaching.
More about the TASME mentorship award:
The TASME mentorship award provides funding for healthcare professions trainees to travel to meet mentors, to develop a mentoring relationship that will support their professional development as a medical educator. The application is a short self-nomination form, consisting of three questions: 1. Can you tell us about your career as an educator so far? 2. How do you plan to spend the award? 3. How might this impact your career as an educator? The next submission window opens on the 4th January 2025.
More about Dr Grace Pearson (she/her):
Grace is a Clinical Lecturer in Ageing Education at Bristol Medical School, and an Adjunct Lecturer in Geriatric Medicine at the University of Zimbabwe. Since finishing her PhD in the field of undergraduate geriatric medicine education, Grace has been continuing her work to innovate and evaluate ageing education in an equitable partnership between the Global North and Global South. @GraceInvaders
