publication record.

@article{code2020pandemic,

title = {Pandemic designs for the future: Perspectives of technology education teachers during COVID-19},

author = {J Code and R Ralph and K Forde},

url = {https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0112/full/pdf?title=pandemic-designs-for-the-future-perspectives-of-technology-education-teachers-during-covid-19},

doi = {10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0112},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-07-08},

journal = {Information and Learning Sciences},

volume = {121},

number = {5/6},

pages = {419-431},

publisher = {Emerald Publishing Limited},

abstract = {Purpose

The disruption caused by the pandemic declaration and subsequent public health measures put in place have had a substantial effect on teachers’ abilities to support student engagement in technology education (TE). The purpose of this paper is to explore the following research question: How do TE teachers see emergency remote teaching (ERT) transitions to blended learning into the next academic year affecting their profession?



Design/methodology/approach

A snowball and convenience sampling design was used to recruit specialist teachers in TE through their professional organization and were asked to respond to the question: What are your concerns about the future of teaching TE remotely? The qualitative data collected from the participants (N = 42) was analyzed thematically (Braun and Clarke, 2006).



Findings

The analysis revealed that the switch to ERT impacted the teachers’ ability to support hands-on competency development owing to inequitable student access to tools, materials and resources, all of which affected student motivation and engagement. As a result, teachers raised questions about the overall effectiveness of online learning approaches and TE’s future and sustainability if offered completely online.



Originality/value

This research is the first of its kind exploring the experiences of TE teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. In answer to the challenges identified by teachers, the authors offer a blended learning design framework informed by pandemic transformed pedagogy that can serve as a model for educators to use when designing blended instruction.},

keywords = {21st century learning, educational technology, learning design, mixed methods, qualitative, self-efficacy, teacher education},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{pellegrini2020social,

title = {Social media in heart failure: A mixed methods systematic review},

author = {D Pellegrini and Y Eliya and A B Gevaert and J Code and H G C Van Spall},

doi = {10.1016/S0735-1097(20)34163-2},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-01-01},

journal = {Journal of the American College of Cardiology},

volume = {75},

number = {11 Supplement 1},

pages = {3536},

publisher = {Journal of the American College of Cardiology},

abstract = {Background

Among social media (SoMe) platforms, Twitter and YouTube have gained popularity, facilitating communication between cardiovascular professionals and patients. This mixed methods systematic review aimed to assess the source profile and content of Twitter and YouTube posts about heart failure (HF).



Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Medline using the terms “cardiology”, “social media”, and “heart failure”. We included full-text manuscripts published between January 1, 1999 and April 14, 2019. We searched Twitter and YouTube posts using the hashtags “#heartfailure”, “#HF”, or “#CHF” on May 15, 2019 and July 6, 2019. We performed a descriptive analysis of the data.



Results

Three publications met inclusion criteria, providing 677 tweets for source profile analysis; institutions (54.8%), health professionals (26.6%), and patients (19.4%) were the most common source profiles. The publications provided 1,194 tweets for content analysis: 83.3% were on education of professionals; 33.7% on patient empowerment; and 22.3% on research promotion. Our search of Twitter and YouTube generated 2,252 tweets and over 400 videos, of which we analyzed 260 tweets and 260 videos. Sources included institutions (53.5% Twitter, 64.2% YouTube), health professionals (42.3%, 28.5%), and patients (4.2%, 7.3%). Content included education of professionals (39.2% Twitter, 62.3% YouTube), patient empowerment (20.4%, 21.9%), research promotion (28.8%, 13.1%), advocacy of professionals (5.8%, 2.7%), and research collaboration (5.8%, 0%).



Conclusion

Twitter and YouTube are platforms for knowledge translation in HF, with contributions from institutions, health professionals, and less commonly, patients. Both focus largely on education of professionals and less commonly, on patient empowerment. Twitter includes more content on research promotion, research collaboration, and professional advocacy than YouTube.



Footnotes

Poster Contributions



Posters Hall_Hall A



Saturday, March 28, 2020, 12:30 p.m.-1:15 p.m.



Session Title: Spotlight on Special Topics: Education and Training 2



Abstract Category: 42. Spotlight on Special Topics: Education and Training



Presentation Number: 1174-278},

keywords = {heart failure, mixed methods, social media, systematic review},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{PMID:28536088,

title = {The use of text messaging to improve the hospital-to-community transition in acute coronary syndrome patients (Txt2Prevent): Intervention development and pilot randomized controlled trial protocol},

author = {E Ross and B M Sakakibara and M H Mackay and D G Whitehurst and J Singer and M Toma and K K Corbett and H G C Van Spall and K Rutherford and B Gheorghiu and J Code and S A Lear},

doi = {10.2196/resprot.6968},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-01-01},

journal = {JMIR research protocols},

keywords = {educational technology, heart failure, mixed methods, RCT},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Code2006c,

title = {Using cognitive tools in gStudy to investigate how study activities covary with achievement goals},

author = {J C Nesbit and P H Winne and D Jamieson-Noel and J Code and M Zhou and K Macallister and S Bratt and W Wang and A F Hadwin},

year  = {2006},

date = {2006-01-01},

journal = {Journal of Educational Computing Research},

volume = {35},

number = {4},

pages = {339-358},

keywords = {educational technology, learning analytics, mixed methods, self-regulation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Code2005,

title = {Online discussion and college student learning: Toward a model of influence},

author = {G M Johnson and A J Howell and J Code},

year  = {2005},

date = {2005-01-01},

journal = {Technology, Pedagogy and Education},

volume = {14},

number = {1},

pages = {61-76},

keywords = {mixed methods, online learning, teacher education},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}