Publication: Valoración del rendimiento académico y percepción de los estudiantes de ciencias de la salud sobre el aprendizaje basado en Estaciones de Trabajo (WSLA) versus modelo tradicional
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2021
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Las Actividades de Aprendizaje Basadas en Estaciones de Trabajo (WSLA) fueron diseñadas e implementadas como un nuevo instrumento de aprendizaje en grados de Ciencias de la Salud con un enfoque integrado y centrado en el estudiante. Se pretende evaluar cómo este modelo de aprendizaje específico afecta al rendimiento académico. Para ello se realizó un estudio en el Grado de Medicina mediante una investigación de metodología mixta. Para la parte cuantitativa, se compararon dos cohortes de estudiantes de primero: la primera, en el año 2015/2016 con una n=320 que recibió los contenidos, con una metodología tradicional. La segunda, en el año académico 2016/2017 con una n=336 que recibió los mismos contenidos con la metodología WSLA. Se identificaron los resultados de aprendizaje en relación con diferentes niveles de la taxonomía de Bloom y se evaluó el rendimiento a partir de preguntas de opción múltiple. Para el análisis cualitativo, se entrevistaron mediante entrevistas semiestructuradas a seis estudiantes, seleccionados intencionalmente considerando el rendimiento académico y la motivación. Los resultados mostraron que el rendimiento de los estudiantes en ambas cohortes, para resultados de aprendizaje que corresponden a los niveles más bajos de la taxonomía de Bloom, fue similar (38,8 vs. 39,0%; p=0,955). Por el contrario, para los resultados de aprendizaje asociados a niveles cognitivos superiores, los estudiantes con la metodología WSLA superaron significativamente a aquellos que recibieron la metodología tradicional (68,5 vs. 54,2%; p<0,001). Un análisis multivariado confirmó que la probabilidad de dominar el segundo resultado de aprendizaje (el más complejo) es 1,64 veces mayor en los estudiantes con metodología WSLA (IC 95%, 1,15-2,34; p = 0,007) que con la metodología tradicional. En las entrevistas, los estudiantes percibieron el escenario clínico de la metodología WSLA como un factor motivador y reconocieron esta metodología como un marco más constructivo para la comprensión de conceptos complicados.
Moving towards a horizontal and vertical integrated curriculum, Work-Station Learning Activities (WSLA) were designed and implemented as a new learning instrument. Here, we aim to evaluate whether and how this specific learning model affects academic performance. To better understand how it is received by medical students, a mixed methods research study was conducted. In the quantitative strand, two cohorts of first year students were compared: academic year 2015–2016 n = 320 with no exposure to WSLA, and academic year 2016–2017 n = 336 with WSLA. Learning objectives at different levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were identified and performance evaluated from multiple-choice questions. In the qualitative strand, a total of six students were purposely selected considering academic performance and motivation, and submitted to semistructured interviews. Performance at both cohorts for learning objectives at lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy was similar (38.8 vs. 39.0%; p = 0.955). In contrast, students in the WSLA group outperformed significantly those not exposed for learning objectives involving upper levels (68.5 vs. 54.2%; p <0.001). A multivariate analysis confirmed that the probability of mastering the second (more complex) objective is 1.64 times higher in students with WSLA methodology (OR 95% CI, 1.15–2.34; p = 0.007) than with traditional methodology. In the interviews, students perceived the clinical scenario of WSLA as a motivator and recognized this methodology as a more constructive framework for understanding of complicated concepts.
Moving towards a horizontal and vertical integrated curriculum, Work-Station Learning Activities (WSLA) were designed and implemented as a new learning instrument. Here, we aim to evaluate whether and how this specific learning model affects academic performance. To better understand how it is received by medical students, a mixed methods research study was conducted. In the quantitative strand, two cohorts of first year students were compared: academic year 2015–2016 n = 320 with no exposure to WSLA, and academic year 2016–2017 n = 336 with WSLA. Learning objectives at different levels of Bloom’s taxonomy were identified and performance evaluated from multiple-choice questions. In the qualitative strand, a total of six students were purposely selected considering academic performance and motivation, and submitted to semistructured interviews. Performance at both cohorts for learning objectives at lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy was similar (38.8 vs. 39.0%; p = 0.955). In contrast, students in the WSLA group outperformed significantly those not exposed for learning objectives involving upper levels (68.5 vs. 54.2%; p <0.001). A multivariate analysis confirmed that the probability of mastering the second (more complex) objective is 1.64 times higher in students with WSLA methodology (OR 95% CI, 1.15–2.34; p = 0.007) than with traditional methodology. In the interviews, students perceived the clinical scenario of WSLA as a motivator and recognized this methodology as a more constructive framework for understanding of complicated concepts.
Description
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Abridged Edition.
• Bandiera, G., Kuper, A., Mylopoulos, M., Whitehead, C., Ruetalo, M., Kulasegaram, K., & Woods, N. N. (2018). Back from basics: integration of science and practice in medical education. Medical Education, 52(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13386
• Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education (Vol. 1). Springer Publishing Company.
• Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
• Dent, J., Harden, R. M., & Hunt, D. (2017). A practical guide for medical teachers. Elsevier health sciences.
• González-Soltero, R., Learte, A. I. R., Sánchez, A. M., & Gal, B. (2017). Work station learning activities: a flexible and scalable instrument for integrating across basic subjects in biomedical education. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 236. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1084-z
• Graffam, B. (2007). Active learning in medical education: Strategies for beginning implementation. Medical Teacher, 29(1), 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590601176398
• Gual, A., Millán Núñez-Cortés, J., Palés-Argullós, J., & Oriol-Bosch, A. (2013). Declaración de Edimburgo, ¡25 años! FEM: Revista de La Fundación Educación Médica, 16(4), 187–189.
• Harden, R. M., Sowden, S., & Dunn, W. R. (1984). Educational strategies in curriculum development: the SPICES model. Medical Education, 18(4), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1984.tb01024.x
• Irby, D. M., Cooke, M., & O’Brien, B. C. (2010). Calls for reform of medical education by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of teaching: 1910 and 2010. Academic Medicine, 85(2), 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181c88449
• Kulasegaram, K. M., Martimianakis, M. A., Mylopoulos, M., Whitehead, C. R., & Woods, N. N. (2013). Cognition before curriculum: rethinking the integration of basic science and clinical learning. Academic Medicine, 88(10), 1578–1585.
• Mann, K. V. (2011). Theoretical perspectives in medical education: past experience and future possibilities. Medical Education, 45(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03757.x
• Michaelsen, L. K., & Sweet, M. (2008). The essential elements of team‐based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008(116), 7–27.
• Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76.
• Thorne, S. (2014). Applied interpretive approaches. The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, 99, 115