4.5 Review

Situated learning theory in health professions education research: a scoping review

期刊

ADVANCES IN HEALTH SCIENCES EDUCATION
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 483-509

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10459-019-09900-w

关键词

Communities of practice; Health professions education; Identity; Legitimate peripheral participation; Scoping review; Situated learning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

At a time when cognitive and behavioral theories dominated the landscape of learning theories, Lave and Wenger's situated learning theory (SLT) opened new territory by illuminating social and cultural learning processes. Many researchers and educators in the health professions embraced this theory, but few have considered how SLT has been used and what has been learned or improved through its use in health professions education (HPE). In this scoping review, the authors examine these questions and consider opportunities for future work with SLT in HPE. The authors followed Levac's modified scoping review framework. They conducted a search of CINAHL, ERIC, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles referencing SLT or related concepts in HPE between 2006 and 2016. Two reviewers screened all titles and abstracts, then screened full text for inclusion based on substantive treatment of SLT. Two authors extracted, analyzed and synthesized data from the final set of 193 articles. The authors identified two patterns of theory use. One sought an understanding of social learning processes in a specific context. The other aimed to design and/or evaluate interventions associated with communities of practice. These patterns are similar to other literatures (e.g., general education, healthcare, and organizational development) and, according to Lave and Wenger, may reflect confusion about the purpose, stance, and terminology of SLT. The authors discuss their findings in relation to primary source literature and consider opportunities for HPE researchers to employ and contribute to SLT going forward.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据