910
Views
10
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
ARTICLES

Managing the tension: From innovation to application in health professions education

ORCID Icon, , ORCID Icon, , &

References

  • ACGME. 2019. Internal medicine program requirements and FAQs [Online]. [accessed 2019 Sep 10]. Available from: https://www.acgme.org/Specialties/Program-Requirements-and-FAQs-and-Applications/pfcatid/2/Internal%20Medicine.
  • Bennett S, Maton K. 2010. Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. J Comput Assist Learn. 26(5):321–331.
  • Bordage G. 2009. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ. 43(4):312–319.
  • Bower JL, Christensen CM. 1995. Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harv Bus Rev. 73:43–53.
  • Cook DA. 2005. The Research we still are not doing: an agenda for the study of computer-based learning. Acad Med. 80(6):541–548.
  • Cook DA. 2012a. If you teach them, they will learn: why medical education needs comparative effectiveness research. Adv Health Sci Educ. 17(3):305–310.
  • Cook DA. 2012b. Revisiting cognitive and learning styles in computer-assisted instruction: not so useful after all. Acad Med. 87(6):778–784.
  • Cook DA. 2014. The value of online learning and MRI: finding a niche for expensive technologies. Med Teach. 36(11):965–972.
  • Cook DA, Beckman TJ. 2015. High-value, cost-conscious medical education. JAMA Pediatr. 169(2):109–111.
  • Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. 2008a. Description, justification, and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 42(2):128–133.
  • Cook DA, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hatala R. 2012. Comparative effectiveness of technology-enhanced simulation versus other instructional methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Simul Healthc. 7(5):308–320.
  • Cook DA, Hamstra R, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hatala R. 2013. Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach. 35:867–898.
  • Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hamstra SJ. 2011. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 306(9):978–988.
  • Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. 2008b. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. Jama. 300(10):1181–1196.
  • Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S, Dupras DM, Erwin PJ, Montori VM. 2010. Instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 85(5):909–922.
  • Cook DA, Andersen DK, Combes JR, Feldman DL, Sachdeva AK. 2018. The value proposition of simulation-based education. Surgery. 163(4):944–949.
  • ECFMG. 2019. ECFMG homepage [Online]. [accessed 2019 Sep 10]. Available from: https://www.ecfmg.org/
  • Elstein AS, Shulman LS, Sprafka SA. 1990. Medical problem solving: a ten-year retrospective. Eval Health Prof. 13(1):5–36.
  • Foo J, Cook DA, Walsh K, Golub R, Abdalla ME, Ilic D, Maloney S. 2019. Cost evaluations in health professions education: a systematic review of methods and reporting quality. Med Educ. DOI:10.1111/medu.13936.
  • Gartner, Inc. 2019. Gartner hype cycle [Online]. [accessed 2019 Sep 9]. Available from: http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.
  • Grant J. 2002. Learning needs assessment: assessing the need. BMJ. 324(7330):156–159.
  • Harden RM, Sowden S, Dunn WR. 1984. Educational strategies in curriculum development: the SPICES model. Med Educ. 18(4):284–297.
  • Holmboe ES. 2015. Realizing the promise of competency-based medical education. Acad Med. 90(4):411–413.
  • Hunt D, Migdal M, Eaglen R, Barzansky B, Sabalis R. 2012. The unintended consequences of clarity: reviewing the actions of the liaison committee on medical education before and after the reformatting of accreditation standards. Acad Med. 87(5):560–566.
  • Iobst W, Aagaard E, Bazari H, Brigham T, Bush RW, Caverzagie K, Chick D, Green M, Hinchey K, Holmboe E, et al. 2013. Internal medicine milestones. J Grad Med Educ. 5(1s1):14–23.
  • Jones C, Shao B. 2011. The net generation and digital natives: implications for higher education. New York (NY): Higher Educ Acad. 2011. [accessed 2019 Sep 10]. Available from: http://oro.open.ac.uk/30014/1/Jones_and_Shao-Final.pdf
  • LCME. 2019. Standards, publications, & notification forms [Online]. [accessed 2019 Sep 10]. Available from: http://lcme.org/publications/.
  • Lomis K, Amiel JM, Ryan MS, Esposito K, Green M, Stagnaro-Green A, Bull J, Mejicano GC. 2017. Implementing an entrustable professional activities framework in undergraduate medical education: early lessons from the AAMC core entrustable professional activities for entering residency pilot. Acad Med. 92(6):765–770.
  • Maloney S, Cook DA, Golub R, Foo J, Cleland J, Rivers G, Tolsgaard MG, Evans D, Abdalla ME, Walsh K. 2019. AMEE Guide No. 123 - how to read studies of educational costs. Med Teach. 41(5):497–504.
  • Monteiro S, Sherbino J, Sibbald M, Norman G. 2019. Critical thinking, biases and dual processing: The enduring myth of generalisable skills. Med Educ. DOI:10.1111/medu.13872.
  • Norcini J, Burch V. 2007. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 29(9–10):855–871.
  • Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. 2008. Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 9(3):105–119.
  • Steinert Y, Mann K, Anderson B, Barnett B, Centeno A, Naismith L, Prideaux D, Spencer J, Tullo E, Viggiano T, et al. 2016. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: a 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40. Med Teach. 38(8):769–786.
  • Steinert Y, Naismith L, Mann K. 2012. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to promote leadership in medical education. Med Teach. 34(6):483–503.
  • Steinert Y, editor. 2014. Faculty development in the health professions: a focus on research and practice. Dordrecht (The Netherlands): Springer.
  • Swanson DB, Norman GR, Linn RL. 1995. Performance-based assessment: lessons from the health professions. Educ Res. 24(5):5–11.
  • Van Zanten M, Boulet J. 2013. The association between medical education accreditation and examination performance of internationally educated physicians seeking certification in the United States. Qual High Educ. 19(3):283–299.
  • Walsh K, editor. 2010. Cost-effectiveness in medical education. Oxford (UK): Radcliffe Publishing.
  • WFME. 2019. WFME homepage [Online]. [accessed 2019 Sep 10]. https://wfme.org/.
  • Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Pawson R. 2010. Internet-based medical education: a realist review of what works, for whom and in what circumstances. BMC Med Educ. 10:12.
  • Zendejas B, Wang AT, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, Cook DA. 2013. Cost: the missing outcome in simulation-based medical education research: a systematic review. Surgery. 153(2):160–176.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.