Автор неизвестен - Mededworld and amee 2013 conference connect - страница 60
Background: New strategies have been proposed to teach large groups on a more collaborative and interactive way. Team based learning (TBL) is one of them. Despite being described for entire courses, many people have been using it as a hybrid approach. Summary of work: The authors designed and tested TBL single modules for undergraduate, diploma course and Post-graduate programs (HPE). The number of students
ABSTRACT BOOK: SESSION 5 MONDAY 26 AUGUST: 1600-1730
varied from 30 to 120. The chosen topics included HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, pregnancy care and diabetes (medical students); positive deviance, curriculum design (Diploma Course); and positive deviance, TBL and problem based learning (HPE Master/PhD programs). Each module lasted from 2.0 to 4 hours. Students' perceptions were collected (Kirkpatrick's evaluation model).
Summary of results: Undergraduate students reported that TBL increased their engagement due to work together. Comparing with lectures students highlighted the possibility of theory application in clinical cases. HPE students (Diploma, Master/PhD) pointed the opportunity to experience TBL and learning by doing. Many participants (also Faculty members in their institutions) didn't know anything about TBL before that experience. Some participants (6/30) of Diploma course (Brazilian FAIMER Regional Institute) tried TBL with their students less than a month after their own experience. Conclusions: TBL is a powerful strategy for both undergraduate and post-graduate students. The experience with TBL increases knowledge and confidence among teachers to understand and apply the method.
Take-home messages: Use TBL (design) for single modules and gain experience with it. Remember to explain the dynamics and offer the previous reading one week before. This could be the passport for the entire TBL course.
An attempt to combine TBL and PBL. A hybrid for better clinical education
Kentaro Iwata (Kobe University Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases, Kusunokicho 7-5-2, Chuoku, Kobe 650-0017, Japan)
Goh Ohji (Kobe University Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases, Kobe, Japan)
Background: Both Problem Based Learning (PBL) and Team Based Learning (TBL) are used for the education of medical students. Combining these two might enhance their advantages, while offsetting their inherent shortcomings.
Summary of work: Our division implemented the original TBL/PBL hybrid program in teaching Clinical Infectious Diseases for 4th year medical student at Kobe University, Kobe, Japan since 2010. Unlike conventional TBL, we did not require the students to do homework prior to the program. Also conventional iRat and tRat was not given to them. Instead, we started with a case presentation like typical PBL. One case was presented per day, diagnostic approach was explored with an infectious disease specialist in one room, and one learning issue was assigned to each student to present on the following day.
Summary of results: Over 5 days of this TBL/PBL hybrid, students appeared better in asking appropriate questions, finding patients' problems, and reaching correct diagnoses. Surveys also indicated that this type of TBL/PBL was more interesting to them comparing to
conventional PBL conducted at the same period by other sections. Workload for teachers to prepare this program was relatively small, and feasible to the settings where not a lot of teachers were available. Conclusions: A novel TBL/PBL hybrid program was attempted at our division. Teaching was given by an Infectious Diseases Specialist with detailed, rich context, while keeping problem based modality. Further evaluative effort should be given whether this type of educational activity contribute to the improvement of medical education.
Take-home messages: A hybrid of TBL/PBL might improve the effectiveness and efficiency of medical education, while offsetting of shortcomings of both.
Changes in emotional intelligence related to team cohesion in a team-based learning environment during a medical school anatomy course
Michelle Holman (Mayo Clinic, Mayo Medical School, 200 First St. S.W, Rochester 55905, United States) Samuel Porter (Mayo Clinic, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, United States)
Nirusha Lachman (Mayo Clinic, Department of Anatomy, Rochester, United States)
Wojciech Pawlina (Mayo Clinic, Department of Anatomy, Rochester, United States)
Background: Emotional intelligence (EI), the ability to perceive and respond to emotions, has been shown to increase academic achievement and team performance. Studies to support this association exist largely in the business world, but its impact in medical education is relatively unexplored.
Summary of work: This study looked at change in emotional intelligence and cohesion within a team-based setting. This study hypothesizes that emotional intelligence scores would increase throughout the 7 week course and that a higher team EI score would have higher team cohesion. First year anatomy students were asked to complete the Self-report Emotions Intelligence Test (SSEIT) at the beginning and the end of the course as well as a survey rating team cohesiveness at the end of the course. Changes in EI sub-scales were compared to overall change in EI as well average team cohesiveness ratings.
Summary of results: During the course the average team EI score increased and correlated with student's change in perception of emotion. In addition, teams with lower cohesion scores seem to have difficulty with managing others' emotions.
Conclusions: This data suggests that team EI can change during team-based learning sessions and is dependent on team dynamics.
Take-home messages: EI, a relatively new concept, may play a role in assessing medical students, and establishing academically successful and productive teams.
50 Workshop: How to write a Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) station
Location: Meeting Room 3.5, PCC
Adrian Husbands (University of Dundee, Division of Clinical & Population Sciences & Education, The Mackenzie Building, Kirsty Semple Way, Dundee DD2 4BF, United Kingdom)
Jonathan Dowell (University of Dundee, Division of Clinical & Population Sciences & Education, Dundee, United Kingdom)
Background: The Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) has formed a major part of the admissions process at Dundee medical school for a number of years and continues to be adopted by medical schools worldwide. We would like to share our experience in writing MMI stations to all who are interested in implementing MMIs or further developing their existing processes. Intended outcomes: We expect attendees to gain a thorough understanding of the MMI station development process.
Structure of workshop: We will first introduce the background to MMIs, highlighting our own research and experience in implementation. We will then discuss how to decide on which domains should be measured by the MMI. A combination of techniques, including group discussion and critical incident interviewing will be used to generate topics for station content for both traditional 'one-to-one' and role-play MMI stations. Finally we will develop and test-run some of our newly developed station ideas.
Who should attend: Anyone interested in or involved with medical school admissions. Level: Introductory
ABSTRACT BOOK: SESSION 5 MONDAY 26 AUGUST: 1600-1730
5P Workshop: A consortium approach to revolutionising subject-based teaching in the medical curriculum of post-Soviet countries: What can ePBLnet teach us?
Location: Meeting Room 4.1, PCC
Ella Iskrenko (St. George's University of London, Division of Population Health Sciences & Education, Cranmer Terrace London SW17 0RE, United Kingdom) Terry Poulton (St. George's University of London, Centre for eLearning in Medical Education, London, United Kingdom)
Viktor Riklefs (Karaganda Medical University, Clinical Skills Center, Karaganda, Kazakhstan) Andrey Loboda (Sumy State University, The Faculty of Medicine, Sumy, Ukraine)
Sergo Tabagari (David Tvildiani Medical University, AIETI Medical School, Tbilisi, Georgia) Panos Bamidis (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Lab of Medical Informatics, Thessaloniki, Greece)
Background: Many post-Soviet countries believe that their teacher- and classroom-based medical education would benefit from modernisation. An advantage of carrying out these developments as a consortium is that post-Soviet countries retain similar educational structures. Consequently there are similar challenges, and opportunities for cross-institutional solutions. ePBLnet is an EC-funded Tempus programme which is creating national medical education centres in Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. It will then modernise the biomedical science component of medicine in Karaganda, Astana, David Tvildiani and Zaporozhia Medical Universities, Sumy and Kutaisi State Universities, moving to learning styles with greater relevance to clinical practice. St George's University of London, University of Nicosia and Aristotle University of Thrace are leading this transformation, which is based on the St George's curriculum and includes an interactive PBL using 'virtual patients'. ePBLnet will link with other medical education networks with similar interests in curriculum development, and use this 'string of pearls' ePBLnetwork to generate the critical mass of academics/institutions needed for sustainable development.
Intended outcomes: Participants will analyse the transformation from the subject-based to PBL-based curricula within the consortium, consider opportunities for their own development, and the development of a relationship with the network. Structure of workshop: An initial presentation will describe the common structure of Post Soviet curricula. Participants explore ways in which they could modify their own curricula (they may wish to bring a copy with them), and consider whether the cross-institutional approach of ePBLnet has potential for them. Who should attend: Those interested in transformation of post-Soviet medical education, or modernising their subject-based teaching. 5Q Workshop: How to get your papers published in different types of journals
Location: Meeting Room 4.2, PCC
Erik Driessen (Maastricht University, Educational Development and Research, PO box 616, Maastricht
Janneke Frambach (Maastricht University, Educational Development and Research, PO box 616, Maastricht
Background: As a (young) researcher it is wise to think about your publication strategy: in what kind of journals are you opting to publish your papers? The journal with the highest impact factor? Or the journal that is read most by the teachers and policy makers? Or the journal in which the theory you just modified with your study is discussed widely? And what will be the effect of your publication strategy for your scientific career? In this workshop we will discuss four articles on the same topic published in four different types of journals. We will look at writing style, structure, the composition of the introduction and discussion sections of the papers? Next to the technical aspects, we will also discuss the ethical side of publishing in different types of journals: how far are you prepared to go to get your paper published in that high impact journal? For example: to what extent will you follow up requirements of the editors for modification of your paper? Intended outcomes: More insight in how to plan a publication strategy. Awareness of the differences between journals and the impact this has on the reviewing of your paper.
Structure of workshop: After a short introduction we will discuss four articles on the same topic published in four different types of journals. Who should attend: People who (want to) publish research about medical education. Level: Intermediate
5R Workshop: Engaging faculty in
Location: Meeting Room 2.2, PCC
Elaine van Melle (Queen's University, Centre for Studies in Primary Care, Kingston, Canada) Mark Goldszmidt (University of Western Ontario, Centre for Education Research & Innovation, London, Canada) Jocelyn Lockyer (University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Calgary, Canada) Vernon Curran (Memorial University, Academic Research and Development, St. John's, Canada) Susan Lieff (University of Toronto, Centre for Faculty Development, Li Ka Shing Healthcare Education Centre, 209 Victoria St, 4th Floor, Room 480, Toronto M5B 1T8, Canada)
Christina St-Onge (Universite de Sherbrooke, Dept of Medicine, Sherbrooke, Canada)
Background: Education Scholarship (ES) is a term encompassing both research and innovation in health professions education. To be of quality, ES has to be: peer-reviewed, publicly disseminated and provide a platform for others. ES is critical to the evolution and reform of medical schools and depends on faculty who are recognized and rewarded for their work developing curriculum and innovations, creating new assessment tools, and undertaking research and evaluation studies. A Canadian study identified six strategies to advance ES: creating a national understanding of ES; developing institutional guidelines to assess the impact of newer forms of ES; developing support systems for leadership and ES mentors; and creating explicit role descriptions and guides for faculty.
Intended outcomes: By the end of the workshop, participants will be able to (1) describe ES (2) identify strategies and approaches that could be used individually and within their Faculty and/or department to foster, recognize and support ES. Structure of workshop: This workshop will begin with a brief overview of ES and a summary of selected research studies which examine recognition and reward systems for ES. Participants will then work in small groups to identify (1) the challenges encountered developing and getting ES recognized and (2) the approaches taken to advancing their careers through ES. This will be followed by an examination of the six strategies identified to advance ES with a focus on their applicability in different settings. The workshop will conclude by creating a set of 'tips' to guide individuals and leaders in developing and recognizing ES in their settings.
Who should attend: Educators and leaders interested in Education Scholarship Level: Intermediate
5S Workshop: 'Falling outside the lines' -How do we identify, support and develop doctors who may need help communicating clearly?
Location: Meeting Room 3.1, PCC
David Blaney (Medical Protection Society, Educational Development, Granary Wharf House, Leeds LS11 5PY, United Kingdom)
Jane Kidd (University of Warwick, Educational Development and Research, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, United Kingdom) Judy Purkis (University of Warwick, Educational Development and Research, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, United Kingdom)
Jill Thistlethwaite (University of Queensland School of Medicine, Centre for Medical Education Research and Scholarship, Herston, Queensland, Australia)
Background: Poor doctor-patient communication is a major source of patient complaints. About 5% of doctors are responsible for 50% of patient complaints and a significant number of the complaints result from ineffective clinical communication. The best ways of identifying such doctors and offering remediation are not known as the literature is limited and most interventions are with students or doctors in training. We report on the outcome of an intervention, the Clinical Communication Programme (CCP) that has been running since 2005 in UK, Australia, South Africa and SE Asia.
Intended outcomes: The workshop will explore the following: What do we mean by poor communication in patient-doctor consultations? How do we identify doctors who are poor communicators? What are the main communication issues? How do we remediate poorly communicating doctors? What are doctors' experiences of this intervention? Participants will: Understand the effect of poor communication; Better understand the magnitude of the problem; Describe existing approaches at remediation; Describe how interventions may be evaluated.
Structure of workshop: Short opening presentation on scope of the problem, identification of doctors at risk, outline of the CCP and how we are evaluating the intervention. Group discussion on identification, remediation and outcome of interventions drawing on participants' experience and knowledge. Summarise workshop, drawing together output from group discussions.
Who should attend: Medical educators, clinical directors, and researchers interested in clinical communication. Level: Intermediate
ABSTRACT BOOK: SESSION 5 MONDAY 26 AUGUST: 1600-1730
5T Workshop: The role of the teacher beliefs in effective teaching and remediation
Location: Meeting Room 3.2, PCC
Jennifer Cleland (University of Aberdeen, Division of Medical and Dental Education, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2AZ, United Kingdom)
Background: While a curriculum may be set out, this becomes shaped by teachers into something personal that reflects their own belief systems, their thoughts and feelings about both the content of their instruction and their learners. Thus, teachers' beliefs and conceptions affect their teaching practice and student outcomes (e.g., Bolhuis & Voeten, 2004). In our area of interest, addressing underperformance, recent research suggests that certain teacher behaviours and roles may be critical to help students turn failure into success (Winston et al. Medical Teacher, 2012; Cleland et al.,
Intended outcomes: To date, the literature on underperformance and remediation has focused on identifying the learner characteristics which predict underperformance. The aim of this workshop is to draw on the wider education literature to consider underperformance and remediation from another perspective: that of the role of the educators' roles and beliefs about teaching and learning. Participants will be better able to use this understanding when planning effective remediation in their own medical schools. Structure of workshop: Based on a Gagne framework the structure of this workshop will be a blended style using information provision combined with practical exercises and opportunities for reflection. Participants will be asked to draw upon their own beliefs, experiences and observations to consider the attributes and practices of medical educators required for excellence in assisting underperforming medical students across a continuum of academic and behavioural support (e.g., effective instruction for all through to individualised support). Who should attend: All medical educators but particularly those with an interest in addressing underperformance. Level: Intermediate
5U Workshop: Overcoming barriers in medical education: Fostering collaboration to improve innovation and research
Location: Meeting Room 3.3, PCC
Matthew Stull (University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, 231 Albert Sabin Way, PO Box 670769, Cincinnati 452670769, United States)
Robbert Duvivier (FAIMER, Philadelphia, United States) Emily Bate (The Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom)
Background: Medical education as an academic specialty can often feel isolating and frustrating as most institutions do not have large sources of support for medical education research or innovations. Collaboration provides the stamina needed to hurdle many barriers that can stand in the way of researchers. A collaborator brings a new perspective and skill set which can invigorate and take your work to the next level. The ability to collaborate is invaluable for young (by age or experience) researchers in medical education. Collaborating across disciplines, departments, institutions, and nations has its challenges but is rewarding both personally and professionally, especially if you are aware of strategies to mitigate these challenges.
Intended outcomes: By the end of this session, participants will:
Recognize instances when collaboration in medical education will benefit both you and your work; Identify opportunities to find collaborators and ways to engage these collaborators effectively; Demonstrate strategies to avoid and navigate conflict among collaborators.
Structure of workshop: This workshop will review both the pearls and pitfalls of establishing and maintaining collaborations by scholarly productive medical educators who met through attending past AMEE conferences. Workshop facilitators will review the evidence through interactive cases to demonstrate effective collaborations that can improve the medical education work being done locally. Participants will share their experiences in small groups, using facilitated discussion to define principles of best-practice. Who should attend: Medical educators of any level who are seeking the opportunity to collaborate to build more robust research programs and innovations at their local institutions. Level: Intermediate
ABSTRACT BOOK: SESSION 5 MONDAY 26 AUGUST: 1600-1730
5V Workshop: Using the Toolbox for Evaluating Educators: You be the judge!
Location: Room A, Holiday Inn
Maryellen Gusic (Indiana University School of Medicine, Dean's Office; Pediatrics, 340 W. 10th Street, Fairbanks
6200, Indianapolis, IN 46202, United States)
Henry Strobel (The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Dean's Office; Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Houston, TX, United States) Patricia OSullivan (University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, Office of Medical Education; Medicine, San Francisco, CA, United States)
Background: Significant progress has been made in defining the value of educational scholarship. Educators at many academic health centers continue to struggle with advancement and promotion because evaluators lack a standardized process to judge educator contributions. In response to this challenge, the AAMC Task Force on Educator Evaluation created resources to aid decision-makers in using clear, consistent and efficient evaluation processes for faculty whose career focus is in education. The product of a 3 year iterative process, the Toolbox for Evaluating Educators, provides indicators for evaluation in each of the five domains of educator activity-teaching, curriculum development, assessment, advising/mentoring and educational leadership-- using accepted frameworks and a common format.
Intended outcomes: Attendees will:
Apply tools from the AAMC Task Force on Educator
Evaluation to review sections of a faculty member's
Justify decision-making based on the rigorous
application of criteria for evaluation
Create a plan to disseminate the Toolbox at one's home
Structure of workshop: In this workshop, attendees will participate in interactive, hands-on activities to apply the criteria in the Toolbox to evaluate sample promotions dossiers. To demonstrate the flexibility of the Toolbox, in facilitated large group discussions, the audience will explore, how the evidence-based rubrics can be employed to make fair and rigorous decisions consistent with their own institutional contexts and guidelines. Each participant will leave the session with ideas about how one can implement use of the Toolbox at his/her home institution.
Who should attend: educators and those who evaluate and mentor educators, Level: Advanced
5W Workshop: ASPIRE excellence in student engagement: hands-on training in submission preparation
Location: Room B, Holiday Inn
Marko Zdravkovic (University of Maribor, Faculty of Medicine, Center for Medical Education, Slomskov trg 15, Maribor 2000, Slovenia) Kristijan Jejcic (University Medical Center Maribor, Department of Psychiatry, Maribor, Slovenia) Eva Nike Cvikl (University of Maribor, Faculty of Medicine, Maribor, Slovenia)