Evaluating an inquiry-based learning program.

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Advances in Physiology Education Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-12 DOI:10.1152/advan.00050.2023
Aniket Nadkarni, Rahul Costa-Pinto, Tamishta Hensman, Emily V Harman, Fumitaka Yanase, Bruce G Lister, Christopher P Nickson, Josephine S Thomas
{"title":"Evaluating an inquiry-based learning program.","authors":"Aniket Nadkarni, Rahul Costa-Pinto, Tamishta Hensman, Emily V Harman, Fumitaka Yanase, Bruce G Lister, Christopher P Nickson, Josephine S Thomas","doi":"10.1152/advan.00050.2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a promising educational framework that is understudied in graduate medical education. To determine participant satisfaction and engagement with phases of an IBL postgraduate education program, a mixed-methods study collected data via survey statements and open-ended responses. The authors included participants attending an intensive care medicine (ICM) IBL program from May to November 2020. Quantitative outcomes included participants' satisfaction with the IBL format and impact of engagement with IBL on the learning experience. Qualitative outcomes explored determinants of engagement with IBL phases and the impact on the learning experience. Of 378 attendees, 167 submitted survey responses (44.2%). There was strong agreement relating to overall satisfaction (93.4%). Responses indicated engagement with \"orientation\" (94.6%), \"conceptualization\" (97.3%), \"discussion\" (91.1%), and \"conclusion\" (91.0%) but limited engagement with the \"investigation\" phase (48.1%). Greater engagement with IBL phases had positive impacts, with repeat attenders having clearer learning objectives (79.1% vs. 56.6%, <i>P</i> < 0.05) and enhanced learning through collaborative discussion (65.9% vs. 48.7%, <i>P</i> < 0.05). Qualitative analysis showed that ICM learners value active learning principles, clear objectives, and a safe environment to expand their \"knowledge base.\" Sessions facilitated \"clinically relevant learning,\" with application of theoretical knowledge. Learners transformed and \"reframed their understanding,\" using the input of others' experiences. ICM learners were highly satisfied with the IBL format and reported valuable learning. Participants engaged strongly with all IBL phases except the investigation phase during the sessions. IBL facilitated learners' active construction of meaning, facilitating a constructivist approach to learning.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> An inquiry-based learning (IBL) program was launched as part of a novel binational intensive care medicine education program. Postgraduate intensive care medicine practitioners participated in this education intervention, where facilitated group discussions explored core intensive care medicine concepts. Survey responses indicated overall satisfaction, engagement with the IBL format, and a constructivist approach to learning. This study provided new insights into the benefits and challenges of an IBL program in the context of practicing clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":50852,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Physiology Education","volume":" ","pages":"930-939"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Physiology Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00050.2023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) is a promising educational framework that is understudied in graduate medical education. To determine participant satisfaction and engagement with phases of an IBL postgraduate education program, a mixed-methods study collected data via survey statements and open-ended responses. The authors included participants attending an intensive care medicine (ICM) IBL program from May to November 2020. Quantitative outcomes included participants' satisfaction with the IBL format and impact of engagement with IBL on the learning experience. Qualitative outcomes explored determinants of engagement with IBL phases and the impact on the learning experience. Of 378 attendees, 167 submitted survey responses (44.2%). There was strong agreement relating to overall satisfaction (93.4%). Responses indicated engagement with "orientation" (94.6%), "conceptualization" (97.3%), "discussion" (91.1%), and "conclusion" (91.0%) but limited engagement with the "investigation" phase (48.1%). Greater engagement with IBL phases had positive impacts, with repeat attenders having clearer learning objectives (79.1% vs. 56.6%, P < 0.05) and enhanced learning through collaborative discussion (65.9% vs. 48.7%, P < 0.05). Qualitative analysis showed that ICM learners value active learning principles, clear objectives, and a safe environment to expand their "knowledge base." Sessions facilitated "clinically relevant learning," with application of theoretical knowledge. Learners transformed and "reframed their understanding," using the input of others' experiences. ICM learners were highly satisfied with the IBL format and reported valuable learning. Participants engaged strongly with all IBL phases except the investigation phase during the sessions. IBL facilitated learners' active construction of meaning, facilitating a constructivist approach to learning.NEW & NOTEWORTHY An inquiry-based learning (IBL) program was launched as part of a novel binational intensive care medicine education program. Postgraduate intensive care medicine practitioners participated in this education intervention, where facilitated group discussions explored core intensive care medicine concepts. Survey responses indicated overall satisfaction, engagement with the IBL format, and a constructivist approach to learning. This study provided new insights into the benefits and challenges of an IBL program in the context of practicing clinicians.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估基于探究的学习计划。
研究性学习(IBL)是一种很有前途的医学研究生教育框架。目的确定参与者对IBL研究生教育项目各阶段的满意度和参与度。方法一项混合方法研究通过调查陈述和开放式回答收集数据。作者包括2020年5月至11月参加重症监护医学IBL项目的参与者。定量结果包括参与者对IBL格式的满意度以及参与IBL对学习体验的影响。定性结果探讨了参与IBL阶段的决定因素以及对学习体验的影响。结果在378名与会者中,167人提交了调查回复(44.2%)。在总体满意度方面达成了强烈一致(93.4%)。回复表明参与了“定向”(94.6%)、“概念化”(97.3%)、“讨论”(91.1%)和“结论”(91.0%),但参与“调查”阶段的程度有限(48.1%)。更多地参与IBL阶段具有积极影响,重复参与者的学习目标更明确(79.1%对56.6%,[p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
19.00%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Physiology Education promotes and disseminates educational scholarship in order to enhance teaching and learning of physiology, neuroscience and pathophysiology. The journal publishes peer-reviewed descriptions of innovations that improve teaching in the classroom and laboratory, essays on education, and review articles based on our current understanding of physiological mechanisms. Submissions that evaluate new technologies for teaching and research, and educational pedagogy, are especially welcome. The audience for the journal includes educators at all levels: K–12, undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs.
期刊最新文献
Assembling a physical model helps students grasp human somatosensory pathways. 11th Annual Michigan Physiological Society Meeting: June 24-25, 2024. Open and cautious toward the application of generative AI in physiology education: embracing the new era. The upside to depression: undergraduates benefit from an instructor revealing depression in a large-enrollment physiology course. Accuracy and reliability of large language models in assessing learning outcomes achievement across cognitive domains.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1