Is the theoretical framework or conceptual model explicit? Logical explanation for choice? Does the chosen framework guide the study?
Abstract Background Use of theory is essential for advancing the science of knowledge translation KT and for increasing the likelihood that KT interventions will be successful in reducing existing research-practice gaps in health care.
As a sociological theory of knowledge, social constructivist theory may be useful for informing the design and evaluation of KT interventions.
As such, this scoping review explored the extent to which social constructivist theory has been applied in the KT literature for healthcare professionals. Methods Searches were conducted in six databases: To be included in the review, key words such as constructivism, social constructivism, or social constructivist theories had to be included within the title or abstract.
Papers that discussed the use of social constructivist theories in the context of undergraduate learning in academic settings were excluded from the review.
An analytical framework of quantitative numerical and thematic analysis was used to examine and combine study findings. Results Of the articles screened, 35 papers published between and were deemed eligible and included in the review.
This review indicated that use of social constructivist theory in the KT literature was limited and haphazard.
The lack of justification for the use of theory continues to represent a shortcoming of the papers reviewed. Potential applications and relevance of social constructivist theory in KT in general and in the specific studies were not made explicit in most papers. For the acquisition, expression and application of knowledge in practice, there was emphasis on how the social constructivist theory supports clinicians in expressing this knowledge in their professional interactions.
Conclusions This scoping review was the first to examine use of social constructivism in KT studies. While the links between social constructivism and KT have not been fully explored, the Knowledge to Action framework has strong constructivist underpinnings that can be used in moving forward within the broader KT enterprise.
Introduction Third party payers, insurers, professional regulatory boards, and patients increasingly expect healthcare professionals to integrate new knowledge and scientific evidence into daily practice [ 12 ], with the ultimate goal of increasing their use of evidence-based practice EBP [ 3 ].
EBP has been shown to have a direct impact on improving patient outcomes [ 4 ]. Despite clear advantages for adhering to EBP principles, not all health professionals readily integrate scientific evidence into clinical decision making [ 5 ].
In Canada, research studies in stroke rehabilitation have indicated that clinicians fail to routinely apply best practices [ 8 - 10 ]. Recognition of the gap between what is known to improve patient outcomes and what is used in daily practice has led to a growing interest in knowledge translation KTdefined as the exchange, synthesis and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health and provide more effective health services [ 12 ].
Some have argued that the use of theory is essential for advancing the science of KT and for increasing the likelihood of successful KT interventions for reducing these practice gaps [ 13 - 15 ].
Greater use of theory can lead to a greater understanding of barriers and enablers of behavior change, inform the design of KT interventions, and allow for exploration of causal pathways and moderators for successful application of EBP [ 15 ]. They emphasized that two objectives should be considered for the application of theories.
This implies that theories could shed light on the multiple variables both individual and organizational that influence clinical behaviors, so that appropriate and targeted interventions can be designed to influence the likelihood that a given stakeholder will adopt a desired behavior.
While Eccles et al. This observation was recently corroborated by Colquhoun et al.’Social Constructionism’, p Also see Pring, Chapter 5, p vital in nursing’.
If I wanted to mention Burns and Bulman’s framework based on the information I have read in methodological debates in the social sciences.
The essay should pay. Theoretical Framework: Social Constructionism This research will be approached by the social constructivist point of view. Behind the constructivism the social idea is that an individual builds up the experience and knowledge explained previously.
Multi-Agency Collaboration: A new theoretical model. By Jo Rose. University of Exeter. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, September an independent reality and constructionism that assumes that reality is the product of social processes (Neuman, ).
The positivist paradigm of exploring social reality is based on the philosophical ideas of the French Philosopher. the constraints of a limited theoretical background.
This paper is an attempt to familiarize designers with three rel-evant positions on learning (behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist) which “Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an.
According to this theory, learners actively construct their knowledge with the focus on a problem-centered approach based on constructivist perspectives. Constructivists believe that learning is the discovery and transformation of complex information and that traditional teacher-centered instruction of predetermined plans, skills and content is .