Vink Sylvia C, Van Tartwijk Jan, Bolk Jan, Verloop Nico
ICLON, Graduate School of Teaching & Leiden University Medical Centre, Wassenaarseweg 62A, 2333 AL, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Centre for Teaching and Learning, Educational Development and Training, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, PO Box 80.140, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Feb 18;15:20. doi: 10.1186/s12909-015-0299-0.
The explication of relations between clinical and basic sciences can help vertical integration in medical curricula. Concept mapping might be a useful technique for this explication. Little is known about teachers' ability regarding the articulation of integration. We examined therefore which factors affect the learning of groups of clinicians and basic scientists on different expertise levels who learn to articulate the integration of clinical and basic sciences in concept maps.
After a pilot for fine-tuning group size and instructions, seven groups of expert clinicians and basic scientists and seven groups of residents with a similar disciplinary composition constructed concept maps about a clinical problem that fit their specializations. Draft and final concepts maps were compared on elaborateness and articulated integration by means of t-tests. Participants completed a questionnaire on motivation and their evaluation of the instructions. ANOVA's were run to compare experts' and residents' views. Data from video tapes and notes were qualitatively analyzed. Finally, the three data sources were interpreted in coherence by using Pearson's correlations and qualitative interpretation.
Residents outshone experts as regards learning to articulate integration as comparison of the draft and final versions showed. Experts were more motivated and positive about the concept mapping procedure and instructions, but this did not correlate with the extent of integration fond in the concept maps. The groups differed as to communication: residents interacted from the start (asking each other for clarification), whereas overall experts only started interaction when they had to make joint decisions.
Our results suggest that articulation of integration can be learned, but this learning is not related to participants' motivation or their views on the instructions. Decision making and interaction, however, do relate to the articulation of integration and this suggests that teacher learning programs for designing integrated educational programmes should incorporate co-construction tasks. Expertise level turned out to be decisive for both the level of articulation of integration, the ability to improve the articulated integration and the cooperation pattern.
阐明临床科学与基础科学之间的关系有助于医学课程的纵向整合。概念图绘制可能是进行这种阐释的一种有用技术。关于教师在整合表述方面的能力,我们所知甚少。因此,我们研究了哪些因素会影响不同专业水平的临床医生和基础科学家群体在学习用概念图阐述临床科学与基础科学整合方面的情况。
在对小组规模和指导说明进行微调的预试验之后,七组专家临床医生和基础科学家以及七组具有相似学科构成的住院医师针对适合其专业的临床问题构建概念图。通过t检验比较初稿和终稿概念图在详尽程度和整合表述方面的差异。参与者完成一份关于动机以及他们对指导说明评价的问卷。进行方差分析以比较专家和住院医师的观点。对录像带和笔记中的数据进行定性分析。最后,通过使用皮尔逊相关性分析和定性解释,将这三个数据源进行连贯解读。
正如初稿和终稿版本的比较所示,住院医师在学习阐述整合方面比专家表现更出色。专家对概念图绘制过程和指导说明更有积极性且持更积极的态度,但这与概念图中发现的整合程度并无关联。各小组在沟通方面存在差异:住院医师从一开始就相互交流(相互寻求澄清),而总体而言专家只有在必须做出共同决策时才开始互动。
我们的结果表明,整合的阐述是可以学会的,但这种学习与参与者的动机或他们对指导说明的看法无关。然而,决策和互动确实与整合的阐述相关,这表明用于设计综合教育项目的教师学习项目应纳入共同构建任务。专业水平对于整合阐述的程度、改进整合阐述的能力以及合作模式都具有决定性作用。