Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
J Interprof Care. 2013 Sep;27 Suppl 2:31-6. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2013.791673. Epub 2013 May 13.
Many institutions have invested considerably in the provision of student facilities--lecture halls, tutorial rooms and classrooms--spaces we call collectively learning environments. In expending resources on such facilities, we have assumed that we have needed to create this range of spaces for such activities. However, how do we know we have invested wisely in support of learning for interprofessional care? In this article I review the literature to identify evidence in a range of fields, including health care, to consider the issues and difficulties of employing established approaches from practices of evidence-based design. Central in this article is the role of evidence in the assessment of learning environments. In particular, I argue that the evidence must include qualitative dimensions of the learning experience. To address the qualitative outcomes from education, with particular attention to the concerns of interprofessional education, a model is proposed to examine different levels of outcomes. By developing an interpretation of Kirkpatrick's model, four levels are described for the effective evaluation of interprofessional learning environments.
许多机构在提供学生设施方面投入了大量资金,包括讲堂、辅导室和教室等学习环境。在为这些设施投入资源时,我们假设我们需要为这些活动创造一系列的空间。然而,我们如何知道我们明智地投资于支持跨专业护理的学习?在本文中,我回顾了文献,以确定包括医疗保健在内的一系列领域中的证据,以考虑从循证设计实践中采用既定方法的问题和困难。本文的核心是证据在评估学习环境中的作用。特别是,我认为证据必须包括学习体验的定性维度。为了解决教育的定性结果,特别是关注跨专业教育的问题,提出了一个模型来检查不同层次的结果。通过对 Kirkpatrick 模型的解释,描述了四个层次来有效评估跨专业学习环境。