What can Designing Learning-by-Concordance Clinical Reasoning Cases Teach Us about Instruction in the Health Sciences?
Journal
Perspectives on medical education
ISSN: 2212-277X
Titre abrégé: Perspect Med Educ
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101590643
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
26
01
2023
accepted:
19
04
2023
medline:
24
5
2023
pubmed:
22
5
2023
entrez:
22
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37215537
doi: 10.5334/pme.898
pmc: PMC10198226
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
160-168Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Références
Med Educ. 2013 Nov;47(11):1109-16
pubmed: 24117557
Med Educ. 2012 Sep;46(9):850-68
pubmed: 22891906
Med Teach. 2015;37(10):955-60
pubmed: 25336258
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005 Jun 20;5:18
pubmed: 15967034
Acad Med. 2015 Nov;90(11):1457-61
pubmed: 25993279
Med Teach. 2022 Feb;44(2):158-166
pubmed: 34459337
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2019 Apr 26;6:2382120519843875
pubmed: 31065588
Med Teach. 2021 Jun;43(6):614-621
pubmed: 33779476
Med Teach. 2022 Mar;44(3):309-318
pubmed: 34641741
Acad Radiol. 2023 Jan;30(1):132-137
pubmed: 35606256
Acad Med. 2014 Jul;89(7):959-60
pubmed: 24979158
Perspect Med Educ. 2019 Feb;8(1):47-51
pubmed: 30666584
Am Psychol. 1994 Aug;49(8):709-24
pubmed: 8092614
Acad Med. 2017 Jun;92(6):746-751
pubmed: 28557933
Can Med Educ J. 2016 Oct 18;7(2):e104-e113
pubmed: 28344697
Med Educ. 2012 Dec;46(12):1215-25
pubmed: 23171264
Nurse Educ Today. 2020 Dec;95:104607
pubmed: 33045676