Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Learning outcomes are typically developed using standard group-based consensus methods. Two main constraints with standard techniques such as the Delphi method or expert working group processes are: (1) the ability to generate a comprehensive set of outcomes and (2) the capacity to reach agreement on them. We describe the first application of Group Concept Mapping (GCM) to the development of learning outcomes for an interdisciplinary module in medicine and engineering. The biomedical design module facilitates undergraduate participation in clinician-mentored team-based projects that prepare students for a multidisciplinary work environment. GCM attempts to mitigate the weaknesses of other consensus methods by excluding pre-determined classification schemes and inter-coder discussion, and by requiring just one round of data structuring. Academic members from medicine and engineering schools at three EU higher education institutions participated in this study. Data analysis, which included multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis, identified two main categories of outcomes: technical skills (new advancement in design process with special attention to users, commercialization and standardization) and transversal skills such as working effectively in teams and creative problem solving. The study emphasizes the need to address the highest order of learning taxonomy (analysis, synthesis, problem solving, creativity) when defining learning outcomes.
Hanumara M, Walsh C, Osborn L, Slocum A. Solving medical challenges while teaching mechanical engineering design. ASME J Mech Des, 2013 (in press).
Bright A, Phillips JR. The harvey mudd engineering clinic: past present and future. Int J Eng Educ. 1999;88:189–94. CrossRef
Cantillon-Murphy P, McSweeney J, Burgoyne L, O’Tuathaigh C, O’Flynn S. Solving clinical problems through interdisciplinary learning: an initial feasibility study. Int J Eng Educ. 2013 (in press).
ECTS Users’ Guide (2009), Brussels: Directorate-General for Education and Culture. http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/ects/guide_en.pdf.
Biggs J, Tang C (2009) Applying constructive alignment to outcomes based teaching and learning. http://drjj.uitm.edu.my/DRJJ/MQAGGPAS-Apr2011/What-is-CA-biggs-tang.pdf.
Tonni I, Oliver R. A Delphi approach to define learning outcomes and assessment. Eur J Dent Educ. 2013;17:173–80. CrossRef
Trochim WMK. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 1989;12(1):1–16. CrossRef
Trochim MK, Trochim WMK. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Applied social research methods series. xv ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007. p. 200.
Sturrock K, Rocha J. A multidimensional scaling stress evaluation table. Field Methods. 2000;12(1):49–60. CrossRef
Turner CW, Lewis JR, Nielsen J. Determining usability test sample size. In: Karwowski, editor. International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors. Boca Raton: CRC; 2006.
General Medical Council UK. Tomorrows Doctors, outcomes and standards for undergraduate medical education; 2009.
Scottish Deans Medical Education Group. 3. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Deans Medical Education Group; 2009. The Scottish Doctor: learning outcomes for the medical undergraduate in Scotland: a foundation for competent and reflective practitioners.
National Alliance for Physician Competence. Good medical practice—USA: the National Alliance. Version 1.0. 2007. http://www.gmpusa.org.
- Use of a group concept mapping approach to define learning outcomes for an interdisciplinary module in medicine
Sabine Van Huffel
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum