4.6 Article

Do photographs, older adults' narratives and collaborative dialogue foster anticipatory reflection (preflection) in medical students?

期刊

BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-016-0802-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health: Western Australia Clinical Training Network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In changing higher education environments, medical educators are increasingly challenged to prepare new doctors to care for ageing populations. The Depth of Field: Exploring Ageing resource (DOF) uses photographs, reflective questioning prompts, older adults' narratives and collaborative dialogue to foster anticipatory reflection or 'preflection' in medical students prior to their first geriatric medicine clinical placement. The aim of this research is to explore whether photographs, narratives and small group collaborative dialogue fosters reflective learning, enhances reflective capacity and has the potential to shift medical students' attitudes towards caring for older adults. Methods: This study used a mixed method evaluation design, measuring attitudes using pre and post questionnaire responses and individual written reflections drawn from 128 second year medical students, exploring their perceptions toward older adults. Results: Quantitative and qualitative data indicated that the DOF session generated reflective learning that resulted in positive shifts in medical students' perceptions towards older adults. The qualitative reflections were captured in four main themes: the opportunity provided to Envision working with older adults; the Tension created to challenge learners' misinformed assumptions, and the work of Dismantling those assumptions, leading to Seeing older people as individuals. Conclusions: These findings highlight how visual and narrative methodologies can be used as an effective reflective learning tool to challenge medical students' assumptions around ageing and how these may influence their care of older adults.

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

4.6
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