(Mis)Alignment in resident and advisor co-regulated learning in competency-based training.

IF 4.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Leora Branfield Day, Deborah Butler, Ayelet Kuper, Rupal Shah, Lynfa Stroud, Shiphra Ginsburg, Walter Tavares, Ryan Brydges
{"title":"(Mis)Alignment in resident and advisor co-regulated learning in competency-based training.","authors":"Leora Branfield Day, Deborah Butler, Ayelet Kuper, Rupal Shah, Lynfa Stroud, Shiphra Ginsburg, Walter Tavares, Ryan Brydges","doi":"10.1111/medu.15549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objective: </strong>In implementing competence-based medical education (CBME), some Canadian residency programmes recruit clinicians to function as Academic Advisors (AAs). AAs are expected to help monitor residents' progress, coach them longitudinally, and serve as sources of co-regulated learning (Co-RL) to support their developing self-regulated learning (SRL) abilities. Implementing the AA role is optional, meaning each residency programme must decide whether and how to implement it, which could generate uncertainty and heterogeneity in how effectively AAs will \"monitor and advise\" residents. We sought to clarify how AA-resident dyads collaboratively interpret assessment data from multiple sources, co-create learning goals and action plans and attempt to enhance residents' SRL skills.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Shortly after each of their six meetings during two years of Internal Medicine residency, we conducted individual, brief interviews with AAs (N = 10) and residents (N = 10). We analysed transcripts using an abductive framework with theory-based and evidence-based sensitizing concepts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We collected 49 residents and 36 AA 'meeting debriefs', which produced rich data on how dyads variably engaged in SRL and Co-RL. Residents and AAs adopted \"learning stances\" that oriented their perceptions and approaches to Co-RL. Their stances did not always align within dyads. We found unique patterns in how stances evolved or devolved over time, and in how these changes impacted dyads' Co-RL processes. While some dyads evolved to engage in proactive co-regulation, most stayed consistent or oscillated reactively in their relationships, with little apparent Co-RL focused on helping residents to develop clinical competencies through SRL. We catalogued multiple influential sources of regulation of learning.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The conceptually ideal form of Co-RL was not consistently achieved in this well-intended implementation of AA-resident dyads. To better translate 'coaching over time' from intention to practice, we recommend that residency programmes use Co-RL principles to refine CBME processes, including refining assessment tools, resident orientation sessions and faculty development practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15549","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objective: In implementing competence-based medical education (CBME), some Canadian residency programmes recruit clinicians to function as Academic Advisors (AAs). AAs are expected to help monitor residents' progress, coach them longitudinally, and serve as sources of co-regulated learning (Co-RL) to support their developing self-regulated learning (SRL) abilities. Implementing the AA role is optional, meaning each residency programme must decide whether and how to implement it, which could generate uncertainty and heterogeneity in how effectively AAs will "monitor and advise" residents. We sought to clarify how AA-resident dyads collaboratively interpret assessment data from multiple sources, co-create learning goals and action plans and attempt to enhance residents' SRL skills.

Methods: Shortly after each of their six meetings during two years of Internal Medicine residency, we conducted individual, brief interviews with AAs (N = 10) and residents (N = 10). We analysed transcripts using an abductive framework with theory-based and evidence-based sensitizing concepts.

Results: We collected 49 residents and 36 AA 'meeting debriefs', which produced rich data on how dyads variably engaged in SRL and Co-RL. Residents and AAs adopted "learning stances" that oriented their perceptions and approaches to Co-RL. Their stances did not always align within dyads. We found unique patterns in how stances evolved or devolved over time, and in how these changes impacted dyads' Co-RL processes. While some dyads evolved to engage in proactive co-regulation, most stayed consistent or oscillated reactively in their relationships, with little apparent Co-RL focused on helping residents to develop clinical competencies through SRL. We catalogued multiple influential sources of regulation of learning.

Conclusion: The conceptually ideal form of Co-RL was not consistently achieved in this well-intended implementation of AA-resident dyads. To better translate 'coaching over time' from intention to practice, we recommend that residency programmes use Co-RL principles to refine CBME processes, including refining assessment tools, resident orientation sessions and faculty development practices.

(在以能力为基础的培训中,住院医师和辅导员共同调节学习的(错误)一致性。
背景/目的:在实施能力本位医学教育(CBME)的过程中,一些加拿大住院医师培训项目招募临床医生担任学术顾问(AAs)。学术顾问应帮助监督住院医师的学习进度,对他们进行纵向指导,并作为共同调节学习(Co-RL)的来源,支持他们发展自我调节学习(SRL)的能力。AA 角色的实施是可选的,这意味着每个住院医师培训项目都必须决定是否以及如何实施这一角色,这可能会在 AA 如何有效地 "监督和指导 "住院医师方面产生不确定性和差异性。我们试图弄清住院医师助理与住院医师二人组如何合作解释来自多个来源的评估数据,共同制定学习目标和行动计划,并尝试提高住院医师的自学能力:在两年的内科住院医师培训期间,我们在六次会议结束后不久,分别对AA(10人)和住院医师(10人)进行了简短的个人访谈。我们使用基于理论和证据的感性概念归纳框架对记录誊本进行了分析:我们收集了 49 份住院医师和 36 份助产士的 "会议汇报",这些汇报提供了丰富的数据,说明二人组是如何以不同方式参与自学学习和共同学习的。居民和戒酒者采取的 "学习立场 "引导了他们对共同学习方式的认识和方法。他们的立场并不总是在小组内保持一致。我们发现,随着时间的推移,他们的学习立场会发生演变或改变,而这些变化又会对他们的合作学习过程产生怎样的影响。虽然有些二人组逐渐发展成为积极主动的共同调节,但大多数二人组在关系中保持一致或被动摇摆,几乎没有明显的通过自律学习帮助住院医师发展临床能力的共同自律学习。我们对调节学习的多种影响因素进行了分类:结论:概念上理想的共同学习方式并没有在这一用心良苦的住院医师培训项目中始终得以实现。为了更好地将 "长期指导 "从初衷转化为实践,我们建议住院医师培训项目利用共同学习原则完善 CBME 流程,包括完善评估工具、住院医师指导课程和教师发展实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信