Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Learning by concordance (LbC) to develop professional reasoning skills: AMEE Guide No. 141
31
Zitationen
3
Autoren
2021
Jahr
Abstract
Developing effective clinical reasoning is central to health professions education. Learning by concordance (LbC) is an on-line educational strategy that makes learners practice reasoning competency in case-based clinical situations. The questions asked are similar to those professionals ask themselves in their practice and participant answers are compared to those of a reference panel. When participants answer the questions, they receive an automated feedback that is two-fold as they see (1) how the panelists respond and (2) justifications each panelist gives for their answer. This provides rich contextual knowledge about the situation, supplemented by a synthesis summarizing crucial points. As many educators in the health sciences are engaging in introducing innovative approaches, many consider building LbC learning modules. Elaborating, designing and implementing a LbC tool remain a challenge. This AMEE Guide describes the steps and elements to be considered when designing a LbC tool, drawing on examples from distinct health professions: medicine, nursing, physiotherapy, and dentistry. Specifically, the following elements will be discussed: (1) LbC theoretical underpinnings; (2) principles of LbC questioning; (3) goals of the concordance-based activity; (4) nature of reasoning tasks; (5) content/levels of complexity; (6) reference panel; (7) feedback/synthesis messages; (8) on-line learning platforms.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note
1997 · 14.693 Zit.
Making sense of Cronbach's alpha
2011 · 14.044 Zit.
QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
2011 · 13.790 Zit.
A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions
1981 · 11.539 Zit.
Clarifying Confusion: The Confusion Assessment Method
1990 · 5.251 Zit.