临床推理案例设计对健康科学教学有何启示?

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Perspectives on Medical Education Pub Date : 2023-05-18 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5334/pme.898
Nicolas Fernandez, Marie-France Deschênes, Haifa Akremi, Lise Lecours, Vincent Jobin, Bernard Charlin
{"title":"临床推理案例设计对健康科学教学有何启示?","authors":"Nicolas Fernandez, Marie-France Deschênes, Haifa Akremi, Lise Lecours, Vincent Jobin, Bernard Charlin","doi":"10.5334/pme.898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Learning-by-concordance (LbC) is an online learning strategy to practice reasoning skills in clinical situations. Writing LbC clinical cases, comprising an initial hypothesis and supplementary data, differs from typical instructional design. We sought to gain a deeper understanding from experienced LbC designers to better support clinician educators' broader uptake of LbC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A dialogic action research approach was selected because it yields triangulated data from a heterogeneous group. We conducted three 90-minute dialogue-group sessions with eight clinical educators. Discussions focused on the challenges and pitfalls of each LbC design stage described in the literature. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified three themes by thematic analysis about the challenges inherent in designing LbC that are unique for this type of learning strategy: 1) the distinction between pedagogical intent and learning outcome; 2) the contextual cues used to challenge students and advance their learning and 3) the integration of experiential with formalized knowledge for cognitive apprenticeship.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A clinical situation can be experienced and conceptualized in many ways, and multiple responses are appropriate. LbC designers use contextual cues from their experience and combine them with formalized knowledge and protocols to write effective LbC clinical reasoning cases. LbC focuses learners' attention on decision-making in grey areas that characterize the nature of professional clinical work. This in-depth study on LbC design, indicating the integration of experiential knowledge, might call for new thinking about instructional design.</p>","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":"12 1","pages":"160-168"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10198226/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What can Designing Learning-by-Concordance Clinical Reasoning Cases Teach Us about Instruction in the Health Sciences?\",\"authors\":\"Nicolas Fernandez, Marie-France Deschênes, Haifa Akremi, Lise Lecours, Vincent Jobin, Bernard Charlin\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/pme.898\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Learning-by-concordance (LbC) is an online learning strategy to practice reasoning skills in clinical situations. Writing LbC clinical cases, comprising an initial hypothesis and supplementary data, differs from typical instructional design. We sought to gain a deeper understanding from experienced LbC designers to better support clinician educators' broader uptake of LbC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A dialogic action research approach was selected because it yields triangulated data from a heterogeneous group. We conducted three 90-minute dialogue-group sessions with eight clinical educators. Discussions focused on the challenges and pitfalls of each LbC design stage described in the literature. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified three themes by thematic analysis about the challenges inherent in designing LbC that are unique for this type of learning strategy: 1) the distinction between pedagogical intent and learning outcome; 2) the contextual cues used to challenge students and advance their learning and 3) the integration of experiential with formalized knowledge for cognitive apprenticeship.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A clinical situation can be experienced and conceptualized in many ways, and multiple responses are appropriate. LbC designers use contextual cues from their experience and combine them with formalized knowledge and protocols to write effective LbC clinical reasoning cases. LbC focuses learners' attention on decision-making in grey areas that characterize the nature of professional clinical work. This in-depth study on LbC design, indicating the integration of experiential knowledge, might call for new thinking about instructional design.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"160-168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10198226/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.898\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.898","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介一致性学习(LbC)是一种在线学习策略,用于在临床情况下练习推理技能。撰写由初始假设和补充数据组成的 LbC 临床案例不同于典型的教学设计。我们试图从经验丰富的 LbC 设计者那里获得更深入的理解,以便更好地支持临床教育工作者更广泛地采用 LbC:我们选择了对话式行动研究方法,因为这种方法可以从不同的群体中获得三角测量数据。我们与八位临床教育工作者进行了三次 90 分钟的小组对话。讨论的重点是文献中描述的每个 LbC 设计阶段所面临的挑战和陷阱。我们对记录进行了转录和专题分析:结果:通过专题分析,我们确定了设计 LbC 所面临挑战的三个主题,这些挑战是这种学习策略所独有的:1)教学意图与学习结果之间的区别;2)用于挑战学生并促进其学习的情境线索;3)认知学徒制中体验与正规化知识的整合:讨论:临床情境可以通过多种方式体验和概念化,因此需要采取多种应对措施。LbC 设计者利用其经验中的情境线索,并将其与正规化知识和规程相结合,编写出有效的 LbC 临床推理案例。LbC 将学习者的注意力集中在灰色地带的决策上,而这正是专业临床工作的特点。这项关于 LbC 设计的深入研究表明,经验知识的整合可能需要对教学设计进行新的思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

What can Designing Learning-by-Concordance Clinical Reasoning Cases Teach Us about Instruction in the Health Sciences?

What can Designing Learning-by-Concordance Clinical Reasoning Cases Teach Us about Instruction in the Health Sciences?

Introduction: Learning-by-concordance (LbC) is an online learning strategy to practice reasoning skills in clinical situations. Writing LbC clinical cases, comprising an initial hypothesis and supplementary data, differs from typical instructional design. We sought to gain a deeper understanding from experienced LbC designers to better support clinician educators' broader uptake of LbC.

Methods: A dialogic action research approach was selected because it yields triangulated data from a heterogeneous group. We conducted three 90-minute dialogue-group sessions with eight clinical educators. Discussions focused on the challenges and pitfalls of each LbC design stage described in the literature. Recordings were transcribed and analyzed thematically.

Results: We identified three themes by thematic analysis about the challenges inherent in designing LbC that are unique for this type of learning strategy: 1) the distinction between pedagogical intent and learning outcome; 2) the contextual cues used to challenge students and advance their learning and 3) the integration of experiential with formalized knowledge for cognitive apprenticeship.

Discussion: A clinical situation can be experienced and conceptualized in many ways, and multiple responses are appropriate. LbC designers use contextual cues from their experience and combine them with formalized knowledge and protocols to write effective LbC clinical reasoning cases. LbC focuses learners' attention on decision-making in grey areas that characterize the nature of professional clinical work. This in-depth study on LbC design, indicating the integration of experiential knowledge, might call for new thinking about instructional design.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Medical Education mission is support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Official journal of the The Netherlands Association of Medical Education (NVMO). Perspectives on Medical Education is a non-profit Open Access journal with no charges for authors to submit or publish an article, and the full text of all articles is freely available immediately upon publication, thanks to the sponsorship of The Netherlands Association for Medical Education. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
×
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