Marleen W Ottenhoff-de Jonge1, Iris van der Hoeven2, Neil Gesundheit3, Roeland M van der Rijst4, Anneke W M Kramer2. 1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Hippocratespad 21, Zone V7-P, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. m.w.ottenhoff@lumc.nl. 2. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Hippocratespad 21, Zone V7-P, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The educational beliefs of medical educators influence their teaching practices. Insight into these beliefs is important for medical schools to improve the quality of education they provide students and to guide faculty development. Several studies in the field of higher education have explored the educational beliefs of educators, resulting in classifications that provide a structural basis for diverse beliefs. However, few classification studies have been conducted in the field of medical education. We propose a framework that describes faculty beliefs about teaching, learning, and knowledge which is specifically adapted to the medical education context. The proposed framework describes a matrix in which educational beliefs are organised two dimensionally into belief orientations and belief dimensions. The belief orientations range from teaching-centred to learning-centred; the belief dimensions represent qualitatively distinct aspects of beliefs, such as 'desired learning outcomes' and 'students' motivation'. METHODS: We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 26 faculty members, all of whom were deeply involved in teaching, from two prominent medical schools. We used the original framework of Samuelowicz and Bain as a starting point for context-specific adaptation. The qualitative analysis consisted of relating relevant interview fragments to the Samuelowicz and Bain framework, while remaining open to potentially new beliefs identified during the interviews. A range of strategies were employed to ensure the quality of the results. RESULTS: We identified a new belief dimension and adapted or refined other dimensions to apply in the context of medical education. The belief orientations that have counterparts in the original Samuelowicz and Bain framework are described more precisely in the new framework. The new framework sharpens the boundary between teaching-centred and learning-centred belief orientations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the relevance of the structure of the original Samuelowicz and Bain beliefs framework. However, multiple adaptations and refinements were necessary to align the framework to the context of medical education. The refined belief dimensions and belief orientations enable a comprehensive description of the educational beliefs of medical educators. With these adaptations, the new framework provides a contemporary instrument to improve medical education and potentially assist in faculty development of medical educators.
BACKGROUND: The educational beliefs of medical educators influence their teaching practices. Insight into these beliefs is important for medical schools to improve the quality of education they provide students and to guide faculty development. Several studies in the field of higher education have explored the educational beliefs of educators, resulting in classifications that provide a structural basis for diverse beliefs. However, few classification studies have been conducted in the field of medical education. We propose a framework that describes faculty beliefs about teaching, learning, and knowledge which is specifically adapted to the medical education context. The proposed framework describes a matrix in which educational beliefs are organised two dimensionally into belief orientations and belief dimensions. The belief orientations range from teaching-centred to learning-centred; the belief dimensions represent qualitatively distinct aspects of beliefs, such as 'desired learning outcomes' and 'students' motivation'. METHODS: We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 26 faculty members, all of whom were deeply involved in teaching, from two prominent medical schools. We used the original framework of Samuelowicz and Bain as a starting point for context-specific adaptation. The qualitative analysis consisted of relating relevant interview fragments to the Samuelowicz and Bain framework, while remaining open to potentially new beliefs identified during the interviews. A range of strategies were employed to ensure the quality of the results. RESULTS: We identified a new belief dimension and adapted or refined other dimensions to apply in the context of medical education. The belief orientations that have counterparts in the original Samuelowicz and Bain framework are described more precisely in the new framework. The new framework sharpens the boundary between teaching-centred and learning-centred belief orientations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the relevance of the structure of the original Samuelowicz and Bain beliefs framework. However, multiple adaptations and refinements were necessary to align the framework to the context of medical education. The refined belief dimensions and belief orientations enable a comprehensive description of the educational beliefs of medical educators. With these adaptations, the new framework provides a contemporary instrument to improve medical education and potentially assist in faculty development of medical educators.
Entities:
Keywords:
Beliefs; Conceptions of learning and teaching; Educational beliefs; Educational framework; Faculty development; Framework validation; Orientations to learning and teaching; Teacher beliefs
Authors: Samantha D Buery-Joyner; Michael S Ryan; Sally A Santen; Allison Borda; Timothy Webb; Craig Cheifetz Journal: Med Teach Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 3.650
Authors: Pieter C Barnhoorn; Mirjam Houtlosser; Marleen W Ottenhoff-de Jonge; Geurt T J M Essers; Mattijs E Numans; Anneke W M Kramer Journal: Med Teach Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 3.650