健康科学教育中工作场所学习量表的开发和验证:一项多方法研究。

IF 3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Advances in Health Sciences Education Pub Date : 2023-11-08 DOI:10.1007/s10459-023-10295-y
Evelyn Steinberg, Stephan Marsch, Takuya Yanagida, Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, Christopher Pfeiffer, Petra Bührle, Lukas Schwarz, Ulrike Auer, Christin Kleinsorgen, Franziska Perels
{"title":"健康科学教育中工作场所学习量表的开发和验证:一项多方法研究。","authors":"Evelyn Steinberg,&nbsp;Stephan Marsch,&nbsp;Takuya Yanagida,&nbsp;Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich,&nbsp;Christopher Pfeiffer,&nbsp;Petra Bührle,&nbsp;Lukas Schwarz,&nbsp;Ulrike Auer,&nbsp;Christin Kleinsorgen,&nbsp;Franziska Perels","doi":"10.1007/s10459-023-10295-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Health sciences students face many challenges in regard to clinical practical learning. A better understanding of student learning is required to address student needs in this crucial phase. The theory of self-regulated learning provides a comprehensive view of learning and could serve as a basis for further research. There are instruments to assess self-regulated learning in preclinical academic learning. However, there are no such instruments for workplace learning. The aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive inventory from which researchers can select those scales that are relevant to their research questions in the investigation of workplace learning. Hence, the aim is to develop and validate a set of scales to assess undergraduates’ workplace learning in health sciences education in four areas (cognition, motivation, emotion, and context) on two levels (the learning process level and the metalevel). Study 1 is a qualitative multimethod study to identify indicators and develop items. It integrates the perspectives of students, teachers, and researchers and includes six steps: literature review, interviews, synthesis, item development, expert review, and cognitive pretesting. This study yields a set of scales for each area on both levels. Study 2 is a quantitative study to assess the psychometric properties. The results show acceptable values in terms of unidimensionality, reliability and validity for each of the 31 scales. The newly developed Workplace Learning Inventory is comprehensive; the scales are relevant to workplace learning and short enough that their administration is feasible in the workplace setting. The rigorous process of questionnaire development contributes to the validity of scales. By providing the Workplace Learning Inventory, we hope to encourage research on workplace learning in health sciences education from an educational psychology perspective.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 4","pages":"1075 - 1129"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369049/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and validation of the Workplace Learning Inventory in Health Sciences Education: a multimethod study\",\"authors\":\"Evelyn Steinberg,&nbsp;Stephan Marsch,&nbsp;Takuya Yanagida,&nbsp;Laura Dörrenbächer-Ulrich,&nbsp;Christopher Pfeiffer,&nbsp;Petra Bührle,&nbsp;Lukas Schwarz,&nbsp;Ulrike Auer,&nbsp;Christin Kleinsorgen,&nbsp;Franziska Perels\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10459-023-10295-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Health sciences students face many challenges in regard to clinical practical learning. A better understanding of student learning is required to address student needs in this crucial phase. The theory of self-regulated learning provides a comprehensive view of learning and could serve as a basis for further research. There are instruments to assess self-regulated learning in preclinical academic learning. However, there are no such instruments for workplace learning. The aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive inventory from which researchers can select those scales that are relevant to their research questions in the investigation of workplace learning. Hence, the aim is to develop and validate a set of scales to assess undergraduates’ workplace learning in health sciences education in four areas (cognition, motivation, emotion, and context) on two levels (the learning process level and the metalevel). Study 1 is a qualitative multimethod study to identify indicators and develop items. It integrates the perspectives of students, teachers, and researchers and includes six steps: literature review, interviews, synthesis, item development, expert review, and cognitive pretesting. This study yields a set of scales for each area on both levels. Study 2 is a quantitative study to assess the psychometric properties. The results show acceptable values in terms of unidimensionality, reliability and validity for each of the 31 scales. The newly developed Workplace Learning Inventory is comprehensive; the scales are relevant to workplace learning and short enough that their administration is feasible in the workplace setting. The rigorous process of questionnaire development contributes to the validity of scales. By providing the Workplace Learning Inventory, we hope to encourage research on workplace learning in health sciences education from an educational psychology perspective.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"1075 - 1129\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369049/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-023-10295-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-023-10295-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

健康科学专业的学生在临床实践学习方面面临许多挑战。在这个关键阶段,需要更好地理解学生的学习,以满足学生的需求。自主学习理论提供了一个全面的学习观,可以作为进一步研究的基础。有一些工具可以评估临床前学术学习中的自我调节学习。然而,工作场所学习却没有这样的工具。本研究的目的是提供一份全面的清单,研究人员可以从中选择与工作场所学习调查中的研究问题相关的量表。因此,我们的目的是开发和验证一套量表,在两个层面(学习过程层面和元层面)上,从认知、动机、情绪和情境四个方面评估本科生在健康科学教育中的工作场所学习。研究1是一项定性的多方法研究,用于确定指标和制定项目。它整合了学生、教师和研究人员的观点,包括六个步骤:文献综述、访谈、综合、项目开发、专家评审和认知预测试。这项研究在两个层面上为每个领域产生了一组量表。研究2是一项评估心理测量特性的定量研究。结果显示,31个量表中的每个量表在单维度、可靠性和有效性方面都有可接受的值。新制定的工作场所学习清单是全面的;这些量表与工作场所的学习相关,并且足够短,在工作场所环境中管理是可行的。严格的问卷编制过程有助于量表的有效性。通过提供工作场所学习量表,我们希望鼓励从教育心理学的角度对健康科学教育中的工作场所学习进行研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Development and validation of the Workplace Learning Inventory in Health Sciences Education: a multimethod study

Health sciences students face many challenges in regard to clinical practical learning. A better understanding of student learning is required to address student needs in this crucial phase. The theory of self-regulated learning provides a comprehensive view of learning and could serve as a basis for further research. There are instruments to assess self-regulated learning in preclinical academic learning. However, there are no such instruments for workplace learning. The aim of the present study is to provide a comprehensive inventory from which researchers can select those scales that are relevant to their research questions in the investigation of workplace learning. Hence, the aim is to develop and validate a set of scales to assess undergraduates’ workplace learning in health sciences education in four areas (cognition, motivation, emotion, and context) on two levels (the learning process level and the metalevel). Study 1 is a qualitative multimethod study to identify indicators and develop items. It integrates the perspectives of students, teachers, and researchers and includes six steps: literature review, interviews, synthesis, item development, expert review, and cognitive pretesting. This study yields a set of scales for each area on both levels. Study 2 is a quantitative study to assess the psychometric properties. The results show acceptable values in terms of unidimensionality, reliability and validity for each of the 31 scales. The newly developed Workplace Learning Inventory is comprehensive; the scales are relevant to workplace learning and short enough that their administration is feasible in the workplace setting. The rigorous process of questionnaire development contributes to the validity of scales. By providing the Workplace Learning Inventory, we hope to encourage research on workplace learning in health sciences education from an educational psychology perspective.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
期刊最新文献
The interpretation-use argument- the essential ingredient for high quality assessment design and validation. Correction: Self-directed learning and the student learning experience in undergraduate clinical science programs: a scoping review. Social support and academic procrastination in health professions students: the serial mediating effect of intrinsic learning motivation and academic self-efficacy. To define or not to define: a commentary on 'The case for metacognitive reflection'. Team science in interdisciplinary health professions education research: a multi-institutional case study.
×
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