Students’ experiences of role, relationships and learning in two clerkship models
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: An increasing number of medical schools around the world are implementing longitudinal integrated clerkships (LICs). The University of Alberta's third-year LIC admits a small group of each class. Those not in the LIC undertake a rotation-based clerkship (RBC). All students have a fourth-year RBC. Meaningful participation in patient care and guidance have been identified as affordances for work-based learning. METHODS: This qualitative study is part of an ongoing research programme conducted in a hermeneutic phenomenological frame. The overarching research question is: What is the lived experience of integrated community clerkship (ICC) students in their clerkships? This paper focuses on an emic question, that is, one arising from the analysis, which was: What was the experience of ICC students in their transitioning to the fourth year? One-to-one reflective conversations with LIC students when they were at the end of their fourth year were the source of the material analysed. Transcripts were first analysed by each researcher and then co-analysed with an emphasis on overall meaning. Results are from conversations with 33 students from the first five LIC cohorts. Socio-cultural learning theory was used as an interpretive framework. RESULTS: This study identifies that the length and nature of placements led to continuity relationships for students with patients and teachers and meaningful participation in patient care. These are an interwoven set of affordances that facilitate learning in the ICC. Participants described the loss of these affordances in the RBC, resulting in diminished confidence, disruption of the learning trajectory and a re-forming of identity. CONCLUSION: It is important for all medical schools with LICs followed by RBCs to consider the differences between these two clerkships as experienced by students in order to determine how best to support students as they navigate through both. Medical educators need to examine all of their clerkships to identify the affordances that support learning.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».