Technology-Enhanced Learning of Human Trauma Biomechanics in an Interprofessional Student Context

References

• Keenan ID, Ben Awadh A. Integrating 3D visualisation technologies in undergraduate anatomy education. In: Rea P, ed. Biomedical Visualisation. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. Vol. 1120. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2019:39–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06070-1_4.
   Google Scholar
• Kühl T, Scheiter K, Gerjets P, Gemballa S. Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations?Comput Educ. 2011;56(1):176–187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedman LR, Felländer-Tsai L. Simulation-based skills training in non-performing orthopedic surgeons: skills acquisition, motivation, and flow during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acta Orthop. 2020;91(5):520–522. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1781413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clunie L, Morris NP, Joynes VCT, Pickering JD. How comprehensive are research studies investigating the efficacy of technology-enhanced learning resources in anatomy education? A systematic review. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11(3):303–319. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedman L, Fahlstedt M, Schlickum M, Möller H, von Holst H, F, Tsai L. A pilot evaluation of an educational program that offers visualizations of cervical spine injuries: medical students’ self-efficacy increases by training. Inform Health Soc Care 2014; 39(1):33–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2013.834343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courteille O, Fahlstedt M, Ho J, et al. Learning through a virtual patient vs. recorded lecture: a comparison of knowledge retention in a trauma case. Int J Med Educ. 2018; 9:86–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5aa3.ccf2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hager P. Theories of practice and their connections with learning: a continuum of more and less inclusive accounts. In: Hager P, Lee A, Reich A, eds. Practice, Learning and Change: Practice-Theory Perspectives on Professional Learning. Vol. 8. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2012:17–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4774-6_1.
   Google Scholar
• Fenwick T, Nerland M, eds. Reconceptualising Professional Learning in Turbulent Times: Changing Knowledges, Practices, and Responsibilities. London, UK: Routledge; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Fenwick T. Matterings of knowing and doing: sociomaterial approaches to understanding practice. In: Hager P, Lee A, Reich A, eds. Practice, Learning and Change: Practice-Theory Perspectives on Professional Learning. Vol. 8. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2012:67–83. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4774-6_5.
   Google Scholar
• Abrandt Dahlgren M, Rystedt H, Nyström S, Felländer-Tsai L, eds. Interprofessional Simulation in Health Care: Materiality, Embodiment, Interaction. Vol. 26. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2019. DOI doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19542-7.
   Google Scholar
• Slack R, Hartswood M, Procter R, Rouncefield M. Cultures of reading: on professional vision and the lived work of mammography. United Kingdom. In: Hester S, Francis D, eds. Orders of Ordinary Action. Europe: Ashgate; 2007:175–193.
   Google Scholar
• Alac M. Working with brain scans: digital images and gestural interaction in fMRI laboratory. Soc Stud Sci. 2008;38 (4):483–508. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312708089715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivarsson J. Visual expertise as embodied practice. Frontline Learn Res. 2017;5(3):123– 127. doi:https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v5i3.253.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez Svensson M. Monitoring practice and alarm technology in anaesthesiology. Health Informatics J. 2007;13(1):9–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458207073649.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koschmann T, LeBaron C, Goodwin C, Zemel A, Dunnington G. Formulating the triangle of doom. Gesture. 2007; 7(1):97–118. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.7.1.06kos.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin C. Professional vision. Am Anthropol. 1994;96(3):606–633. doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koschmann T, Zemel A. Optical pulsars and black arrows: discoveries as occasioned productions. J Learn Sci. 2009; 18(2):200–246. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400902797966.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs T. Intercorporeality and interaffectivity. In: Meyer J, Streeck J, Jordan S, eds. Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2017:3–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210465.003.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidsberger F, Löffler-Stastka H. Empathy is proprioceptive: the bodily fundament of empathy - a philosophical contribution to medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):69. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1161-y.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hedenstierna S, Halldin P. How does a three-dimensional continuum muscle model affect the kinematics and muscle strains of a finite element neck model compared to a discrete muscle model in rear-end, frontal, and lateral impacts. Spine. 2008;33(8):E236–E245. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816b8812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath C, Hindmarsh J, Luff P. Video Analysis and Qualitative Research: Analysing Interaction in Social Life. London, UK: Sage; 2010. doi:https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526435385.
   Google Scholar
• Hennink M. Focus Group Discussions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199856169.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Fusch P, Fusch E, Ness LR. Denzin’s paradigm shift: revisiting triangulation in qualitative research. Soc Change. 2018;10(1):19–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.5590/JOSC.2018.10.1.02.
   Google Scholar
• Kendon A. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15427580701340790.
   Google Scholar
• Green B. Thinking bodies: practice theory, deleuze, and professional education. In: Green B, Hopwood N, eds. The Body in Professional Practice Learning and Education. Vol. 11. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2015:121–136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00140-1_8.
   Google Scholar
• Dieckmann P, Johnson E, Hopwood N. Bodies in simulation. In: Abrandt Dahlgren, M, Rystedt, H, Felländer-Tsai L, Nyström S, eds. Interprofessional Simulation in Health Care: Materiality, Embodiment, Interaction. Vol. 26. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2019:175–195. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19542-7_8.
   Google Scholar
• Rystedt H, Sjöblom B. Realism, authenticity, and learning in healthcare simulations: rules of relevance and irrelevance as interactive achievements. Instructional Sci. 2012;40(5):785–789. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9213-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. New York. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; 1910.
   Google Scholar
• Bandiera G, Kuper A, Mylopoulos M, et al. Back from basics: integration of science and practice in medical education. Med Educ. 2018;52(1):78–85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.1338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar