Literature DB >> 27008030

Aligning physical learning spaces with the curriculum: AMEE Guide No. 107.

Jonas Nordquist1, Kristina Sundberg1, Andrew Laing2.   

Abstract

This Guide explores emerging issues on the alignment of learning spaces with the changing curriculum in medical education. As technology and new teaching methods have altered the nature of learning in medical education, it is necessary to re-think how physical learning spaces are aligned with the curriculum. The better alignment of learning spaces with the curriculum depends on more directly engaged leadership from faculty and the community of medical education for briefing the requirements for the design of all kinds of learning spaces. However, there is a lack of precedent and well-established processes as to how new kinds of learning spaces should be programmed. Such programmes are essential aspects of optimizing the intended experience of the curriculum. Faculty and the learning community need better tools and instruments to support their leadership role in briefing and programming. A Guide to critical concepts for exploring the alignment of curriculum and learning spaces is provided. The idea of a networked learning landscape is introduced as a way of assessing and evaluating the alignment of physical spaces to the emerging curriculum. The concept is used to explore how technology has widened the range of spaces and places in which learning happens as well as enabling new styles of learning. The networked learning landscaped is explored through four different scales within which learning is accommodated: the classroom, the building, the campus, and the city. High-level guidance on the process of briefing for the networked learning landscape is provided, to take into account the wider scale of learning spaces and the impact of technology. Key to a successful measurement process is argued to be the involvement of relevant academic stakeholders who can identify the strategic direction and purpose for the design of the learning environments in relation to the emerging demands of the curriculum.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27008030     DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2016.1147541

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Teach        ISSN: 0142-159X            Impact factor:   3.650


  7 in total

1.  Effect of Seating Arrangement on Class Engagement in Team-based Learning: a Quasi-Experimental Study.

Authors:  Hong An Andrew Seet; Emmanuel Tan; Preman Rajalingam
Journal:  Med Sci Educ       Date:  2022-01-09

2.  Preliminary Evidence Supporting a Novel 10-Item Clinical Learning Environment Quick Survey (CLEQS).

Authors:  Deborah Simpson; Matthew McDiarmid; Tricia La Fratta; Nicole Salvo; Jacob L Bidwell; Lawrence Moore; David M Irby
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2021-08-13

3.  Design of simulation-based medical education and advantages and disadvantages of in situ simulation versus off-site simulation.

Authors:  Jette Led Sørensen; Doris Østergaard; Vicki LeBlanc; Bent Ottesen; Lars Konge; Peter Dieckmann; Cees Van der Vleuten
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2017-01-21       Impact factor: 2.463

4.  Conditions for excellence in teaching in medical education: The Frankfurt Model to ensure quality in teaching and learning.

Authors:  Marianne Giesler; Gudrun Karsten; Falk Ochsendorf; Jan Breckwoldt
Journal:  GMS J Med Educ       Date:  2017-10-16

5.  Colonoscopy Procedure Time: Does the Learning Environment Matter?

Authors:  Neel Sharma
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2017-05-31

6.  Optimizing the Physical Clinical Learning Environment for Teaching.

Authors:  Avraham Z Cooper; Deborah Simpson; Jonas Nordquist
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2020-04

7.  A Malaysian version of learning space preferences: a validation study.

Authors:  Joong Hiong Sim; Chan Choong Foong; Vinod Pallath; Wei-Han Hong; Jamuna Vadivelu
Journal:  Int J Med Educ       Date:  2021-05-27
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.