Adaptation of Clinical Reasoning Learning to Large Groups of students

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Dec 1, 2024
https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v102i12.5232
Download
pdf
Vol. 102 No. 12 (2024): Tunis Med dec 2024

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Dalila Miraoui
Centre for Cancer Control,Department of Medical Oncology,Toxicomed Laboratory, Faculty of medicine, University of Djillali Liabes,22000, Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria.
Yamina Kherraf
Histology Department, CHU Tlemcen, Faculty of Medicine, Abou Bekr Belkaid University, 13000 Tlemcen, Algeria.
Latéfa Hennaoui
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, CHU Tlemcen, Faculty of Medicine, Abou Bekr Belkaid University, 13000 Tlemcen, Algeria
Chahrazed Kandouci
Department of Occupational Medicine, CHU Hassani Abdelkader, Faculty of Medicine, University of Djillali Liabés, 22000, Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria
Derouicha Matmour
Djillali Liabés University, CHU HASSANI Abdelkader, Faculty of Medicine, Central Laboratory, 22000, Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria.
Djamila Yekrou
Centre for Cancer Control,Department of Medical Oncology,Toxicomed Laboratory, Faculty of medicine, University of Djillali Liabes,22000, Sidi Bel Abbes, Algeria.
Kaouel Meguenni
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, CHU Tlemcen, Faculty of Medicine, Abou Bekr Belkaid University, 13000 Tlemcen, Algeria

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical Reasoning Learning (CRL) is one of the most important methods of active learning in medicine. This instruction is designed for small groups of students.


Objectives and methods: We conducted a prospective descriptive study with the primary goal of adapting this instruction for large groups of students. The secondary objective was to compare two methods of adapting this instruction (fish bowl technique and whole-group participation), and the comparison was conducted using an evaluation questionnaire with a Likert scale.


Results: Our sample included 130 students, divided into 2 groups: the Fish bowl CRL group (57 students) and the group with the participation of all students (73 students). Strengthening of prior knowledge, the working atmosphere, assimilation of information, and supervision were the strengths of this instruction. The negatives were related to insufficient time. The analysis found a statistically significant difference in averages between the 2 groups, and this difference pertained to the variables of participation and appreciation of the atmosphere, with a p-value of 0.01 for both.


Conclusion: CRL can be adapted for large groups in the form of fish bowl learning. Currently, it is challenging to measure the actual impact of educational activities on the development of clinical reasoning due to the lack of precise measurement instruments. Evaluation questionnaires can be a first step in measuring the impact of these instructions with modified structures. It would be interesting in future studies to create assessment tools for these restructured instructions.

Keywords:

Clinical reasoning, aquarium, large group

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Nendaz M, Charlin B, Leblanc V, Bordage G. Le raisonnement clinique: données issues de la recherche et implications pour l’enseignement. Pédagogie médicale. 2005;6(4):235-54.
  2. Fruchter R, editor The Fishbowl TM: Degrees of Engagement in Global Teamwork. Workshop of the European Group for Intelligent Computing in Engineering; 2006: Springer.
  3. Garrison K, Munday NK. Toward authentic dialogue: Origins of the fishbowl method and implications for writing center work. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal. 2012.
  4. Demeester A, Vanpee D, Marchand C, Eymard C. Formation au raisonnement clinique: perspectives d’utilisation des cartes conceptuelles. Pédagogie médicale. 2010;11(2):81-95.
  5. Fon NC, Poellhuber B, Audetat M-C, Charbonneau A, Crevier F, Berube B. Les Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) sont-ils une méthode utile en pédagogie médicale? Éléments de réponse avec l’exemple du MOOC-Processus de raisonnement clinique. Pédagogie Médicale. 2017;18(2):47-50.
  6. LABOUX PO, POTTIER P, RENARD E, BARRIER PJ, Mef C. Petit guide de pédagogie médicale & évaluation clinique. 2011.
  7. Kassirer JP. Teaching Clinical Reasoning: Case-Based and Coached. Academic Medicine. 2010;85(7):1118-24. PubMed PMID: 00001888-201007000-00011.
  8. Santos Cerqueira G, Silva RSeS, da Santos Silva JM, Naconecy de Souza HS, Pimenta Bindá HS, da Silva IdN, et al. Fishbowl As Pedagogical Innovation In Anatomy Teaching. The FASEB Journal. 2022;36.
  9. Liu K. Investigating the Efficacy of Fishbowl Simulations in Supporting Diverse Learners. Learning Outcomes of the Reformed Language, Literature and Culture Curricula at the Faculty of Philology in Belgrade.
  10. Vanpee D, Godin V, Lebrun M. Améliorer l’enseignement en grands groupes à la lumière de quelques principes de pédagogie active. Pédagogie médicale. 2008;9(1):32-41.
  11. Perrier C. L’apprentissage du raisonnement clinique infirmier par vignette clinique courte: étude exploratoire. Recherches en soins infirmiers. 2014 (3):52-61.
  12. Massart V, Buret L, Giet D, Belche J-L, Dory V. Séance d’apprentissage du raisonnement clinique (ARC) à distance. Pédagogie Médicale. 2020;21(4):223-6.
  13. Zairi I, Mzoughi K, Dhiab MB, Soussi S, Kraiem S. evaluation des séances d’apprentissage du raisonnement clinique par les étudiants de troisième année médecine evaluation of clinical reasoning teaching for third year medical students. Tunis Med 2017;95(01):1-5.
  14. Charlin B, Bordage G, Van Der Vleuten C. L'évaluation du raisonnement clinique. Pédagogie médicale. 2003;4(1):42-52.
  15. Gray JD. Global rating scales in residency education. Academic Medicine. 1996;71(1):S55-63.
  16. Bot SD, Terwee C, Van der Windt D, Bouter L, Dekker J, De Vet H, editors. Psychometric evaluation of self-report questionnaires: The development of a checklist. Proceedings of the second workshop on research methodology; 2003: Vu University, Amsterdam.
  17. Norman GR, Swanson DB, Case SM. Conceptual and methodological issues in studies comparing assessment formats. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 1996;8(4):208-16.