4.6 Article

Ethical learning on international medical electives: a case-based analysis of medical student learning experiences

期刊

BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-018-1181-7

关键词

medical elective; ethical learning; transformative learning; Mezirow; lobal health education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Students on international medical electives face complex ethical issues when undertaking clinical work. The variety of elective destinations and the culturally specific nature of clinical ethical issues suggest that pre-elective preparation could be supplemented by in-elective support. Methods: An online, asynchronous, case-based discussion was piloted to support ethical learning on medical student electives. We developed six scenarios from elective diaries to stimulate peer-facilitated discussions during electives. We evaluated the transcripts to assess whether transformative, experiential learning took place, assessing specifically for indications that 1) critical reflection, 2) reflective action and 3) reflective learning were taking place. We also completed a qualitative thematic content analysis of the discussions. Results: Of forty-one extended comments, nine responses showed evidence of transformative learning (Mezirow stage three). The thematic analysis identified five themes: adopting a position on ethical issues without overt analysis; presenting issues in terms of their effects on students' ability to complete tasks; describing local contexts and colleagues as other; difficulty navigating between individual and structural issues, and overestimation of the impact of individual action on structures and processes. Conclusion: Results suggest a need to: frame ethical learning on elective so that it builds on earlier ethical programmes in the curriculum, and encourages students to adopt structured approaches to complex ethical issues including cross-cultural negotiation and to enhance global health training within the curriculum.

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