Author:
Sánchez Judit,Lesmes Marta,Rubio Margarita,Gal Beatriz,Tutor Antonio S.
Abstract
AbstractMaking health science students aware of the importance of basic science knowledge for professional practice is a major educational challenge, especially during the early years of preclinical courses. Here, using an integrated curricular approach, we analyze whether Work Station Learning Activities (WSLA), which combine active learning methodologies for teaching basic science in clinical scenarios, can help to develop deeper learning and student engagement. In order to increase student motivation, we evaluated the effectiveness of WSLA using statistical analyses and an observation tool based on the ICAP (Interactive, Constructive, Active, and Passive) framework, which categorizes learning tasks based on the nature of student engagement. Statistical analyses revealed positive correlations between the different summative evaluations along the development of the activities, indicating the learning process inherent to WSLA progression and affirming the positive influence of WSLA on academic outcomes. Comparing the pre- and post-tests, students scored significantly higher on the post-test (statistically significant p < 0.001). WSLA promotes both constructivist and interactive learning, as validated by its alignment with the ICAP model. The study examines student engagement through systematic observation, revealing a relationship between student engagement and final grades. Students who exhibit constructive learning consistently earn higher grades, emphasizing the positive impact of active engagement. Thus, passive behavior profiles show a significant proportion of fails (40%), while constructive profiles stand out as the sole recipients of the coveted excellent rating. Ultimately, this study contributes to our understanding of the effectiveness of WSLA in promoting active learning and enhancing student engagement within integrated health education curricula. It highlights the importance of active learning behaviors for academic success and suggests avenues for further research to optimize integrated teaching methodologies in medical education.
Funder
Intra-mural program of the Universidad Europea de Madrid
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference30 articles.
1. Willey J, Lim YS, Kwiatkowski T. Modeling integration: co-teaching basic and clinical sciences medicine in the classroom. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:739–51.
2. Sakles JC, Maldonado R, Kumari V. Integration of Basic Sciences and Clinical Sciences in a clerkship: a pilot study. Med Sci Educ. 2006;16(1):4–9.
3. Finnerty EP, Chauvin S, Bonaminio G, Andrews M, Carroll RG, Pangaro LN. Flexner revisited: the role and value of the basic sciences in medical education. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):349–55.
4. Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide 96. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):312–22.
5. Bodemer D, Ploetzner R. Encouraging the active integration of information during learning with multiple and interactive representations. Rev Lit Arts Am. 1998;40:1–10.