Building bridges between theory and practice in medical education using a design-based research approach: AMEE Guide No. 60

References

• Albert M, Hodges B, Regehr G. Research in medical education: Balancing service and science. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2007; 12: 103–115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badley G. The crisis in educational research: A pragmatic approach. Eur Educ Res J 2003; 2(2)296–308
   Google Scholar
• Barab S, Squire K. Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. J Learn Sci 2004; 13(1)1–14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berliner DC. Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educ Res 2002; 31(8)18–20
   Google Scholar
• Biggs J. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ 1996; 32: 347–364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs J. Teaching for quality learning at university. SRHE Open University Press, Buckingham 1999
   Google Scholar
• Birenbaum M. New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards, M Segers, F Dochy, E Cascallar. Dordrecht, Boston, London 2003; 13–36
   Google Scholar
• Boor K, Scheele F, Vleuten CPM, Scherpbier AJJA, Teunissen PW, Sijtsma K. Psychometric properties of an instrument to measure the clinical learning environment. Med Educ 2007; 41: 92–99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown A. Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. J Learn Sci 1992; 2: 141–178
   Google Scholar
• Bunniss S, Kelly DR. Research paradigms in medical education research. Med Educ 2010; 44: 358–366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins A, Joseph D, Bielaczyc K. Design research: Theoretical and methodogical issues. J Learn Sci 2004; 13(1)15–42
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: A framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ 2008; 42: 128–133
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daelmans HEM, Hoogenboom RJI, Donker AJM, Scherpbier AJJA, Stehouwer CDA, van der Vleuten C. Effectiveness of clinical rotations as a learning environment for achieving competence. Med Teach 2004; 26(4)305–312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Design-Based Research Collective. Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educ Res 2003; 32(1)5–8
   Google Scholar
• Dolmans DHJM, Wolfhagen IHAP, Heineman E, Scherpbier AJJA. Factors adversely affecting student learning in the clinical learning environment: A student perspective. Educ Health 2008; 20(3)e1–e10
   Google Scholar
• Dornan T, Boshuizen H, Kind N, Scherpbier A. Experience-based learning: A model linking the processes and outcomes of medical students’ workplace learning. Med Educ 2007; 41: 84–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driessen EW, Van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Van Tartwijk J, Vermunt J. The use of qualitative research criteria for portfolio assessment as an alternative to reliability evaluation: A case study. Med Educ 2005; 39(2)214–220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eva K. Broadening the debate about quality in medical education research. Med Educ 2009; 43: 294–296
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant J, Kilminster S, Jolly B, Cottrell D. Clinical supervision of SpRs: Where does it happen, when does it happen and is it effective. Med Educ 2003; 37: 140–148
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gruppen LD. Is medical education research ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ research?. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008; 13(1)1–2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth generation evaluation. Sage, London 1989
   Google Scholar
• Hofman KG, Donaldson JE. Contextual tensions of the clinical environment and their influence on teaching and learning. Med Educ 2004; 38: 448–454
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res 2004; 33(7)14–26
   Google Scholar
• Kelly A. Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological?. J Learn Sci 2004; 13(1)115–128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kember D. To control or not to control: The question of whether experimental designs are appropriate for evaluating teaching innovations in higher education. Assess Eval High Educ 2003; 28(1)89–101
   Google Scholar
• Kilminster S, Cottrell D, Grant J, Jolly B. AMEE Guide No. 27: Effective educational and clinical supervision. Med Teach 2007; 29: 2–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W. Qualitative research. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008; 337: a288, doi: 10.1136/bmj.a288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longhurst N, Norton LS. Self-assessment in coursework essays. Stud Educ Eval 1997; 23: 319–330
   Google Scholar
• McKenney S, Nieveen N, van den Akker J. Design research from a curriculum perspective. Educational design research, J van den Akker, K Gravemeijer, S McKenney, N Nieveen. Routledge, London 2006; 67–90
   Google Scholar
• Monrouxe L, Rees CE. Picking up the gauntlet: Constructing medical education as a social science. Med Educ 2009; 43: 196–198
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nieveen N, McKenney S, van den Akker J. Educational design research: The value of variety. Educational design research, J van den Akker, K Gravemeijer, S McKenney, N Nieveen. Routledge, London 2006; 151–159
   Google Scholar
• Norcini JJ. Work based assessment. BMJ 2003; 326(7392)753–755
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Norman G. Editorial – how bad is medical education research anyway?. Adv Health Sci Educ 2007; 12: 1–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope C, Mays N. Critical reflections on the rise of qualitative research. BMJ 2009; 339: 737–739
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves S, Albert M, Kuper A, Hodges BD. Qualitative research. Why use theories in qualitative research?. BMJ 2008; 337: a949, doi: 10.1136/bmj.a949
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves TC, Herrington J, Oliver R. Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. J Comput High Educ 2005; 16(2)96–115
   Google Scholar
• Regehr G. It's not rocket science: Rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education. Med Educ 2010; 44: 31–39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segers M, 2004. Assessment en leren als een twee-eenheid: Onderzoek naar de impact van assessment op leren. [The dyad of assessment and learning: A study of the impact of assessment on learning.] Inaugural address given at the acceptance of professorship in Pedagogics, Educational Sciences in particular, at Leiden University. Leiden: Leiden University
   Google Scholar
• Schifferdecker K, Reed VA. Using mixed methods research in medical education: Basic guidelines for researchers. Med Educ 2009; 43: 637–644
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP. Changing education, changing assessment, changing research?. Med Educ 2004; 38(8)805–812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shephard LA. The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educ Res 2000; 29(7)4–14
   Google Scholar
• Stalmeijer RE, Dolmans DHJM, Wolfhagen IHAP, Muijtjens AMM, Scherpbier AJJA. The development of an instrument for evaluating clinical teachers: Involving stakeholders to determine content validity. Med Teach 2008; 30: e272–e277
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stalmeijer R, Dolmans D, Wolfhagen I, Muijtjens A, Scherpbier A. The Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (MTCQ) as a valid and reliable instrument for the evaluation of clinical teachers. Acad Med 2010; 85(11)1732–1738
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teunissen PW, Scheele F, Scherpbier AJJA, van der Vleuten CPM, Boor K, van Luijk SJ, van Diemen-Steenvoorde JAAM. How residents learn: Qualitative evidence for the pivotal role of clinical activities. Med Educ 2007; 41: 763–770
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tigelaar DEH, Dolmans DHJM, Wolfhagen HAP, Van der Vleuten CPM. The development and validation of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education. High Educ 2004a; 48: 253–268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tigelaar DEH, Dolmans DHJM, Wolfhagen HAP, Van der Vleuten CPM. Using a conceptual framework and the opinions of portfolio experts to develop a teaching portfolio prototype. Stud Educ Eval 2004b; 30(3)305–321
   Google Scholar
• Tigelaar DEH, Dolmans DHJM, Wolfhagen HAP, Van der Vleuten CPM. Quality issues in judging portfolios: Implications for organizing teaching portfolio assessment procedures. Stud High Educ 2005; 30(5)595–610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tigelaar DEH, Dolmans DHJM, De Grave WS, Wolfhagen HAP, Van der Vleuten CPM. Portfolio as a tool to stimulate teachers’ reflections. Med Teach 2006a; 28(3)277–282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tigelaar DEH, Dolmans DHJM, De Grave WS, Wolfhagen HAP, Van der Vleuten CPM. Participants’ opinions on the usefulness of a teaching portfolio. Med Educ 2006b; 40(4)371–378
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tigelaar DEH, Dolmans DHJM, Meijer PC, de Grave WS, van der Vleuten CPM. Teachers’ interactions and their collaborative reflection processes during peer meetings. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008; 13(3)289–308
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van den Akker J, Gravemeijer K, McKenney S, Nieveen N., editors. 2006. Educational design research. London: Routeledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth L. Assessment of professional competence: From methods to programmes. Adv Health Sci Educ 2005; 1(1)41–67
   Google Scholar
• Van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen E, Dijkstra J, Tigelaar DEH, Baartman LKJ, Van Tartwijk J. submitted. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose.
   Google Scholar
• Wamsley MA, Dubowitz N, Kohli P, Cooke M, O’Brien BC. Continuity in a longitudinal out-patient attachment for year 3 medical students. Med Educ 2009; 43: 895–906
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wimmers PF, Schmidt HG, Splinter TAW. Influence of clerkship experiences on clinical competence. Med Educ 2006; 40: 450–458
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar