medigraphic.com

2011, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Cir Cir 2011; 79 (1)

Surgical laboratory in pregraduate medicine

Tapia-Jurado J

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 83-91
PDF size: 358.65 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Surgical laboratory in pregraduate students in medicine is beneficial and improves learning processes in cognitive aspects and skills acquisition. It is also an early initiation into scientific research. The laboratory is the introductory pathway into basic concepts of medical science (meaningful learning). It is also where students gain knowledge in procedures and abilities to obtain professional skills, an interactive teacher-student process. Medicine works rapidly to change from an art to a science. This fact compromises all schools and medical faculties to analyze their actual lesson plans. Simulators give students confidence and ability and save time, money and resources, eliminating at the same time the ethical factor of using live animals and the fear of patient safety. Multimedia programs may give a cognitive context evolving logically with an explanation based on written and visual animation followed by a clinical problem and its demonstration in a simulator, all before applying knowledge to the patient.


REFERENCES

  1. Hofstein A, Lunetta VN. The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Rev Educ Res 1982;52:201-217.

  2. Hofstein A, Levi-Nahum T, Shore R. Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environ Res 2001;4:193-207.

  3. Hofstein A, Kempa RF. Motivating aspects in science education: an attempt at an analysis. Eur J Sci Educ 1985;7:221-229.

  4. Tobin KG. Research of science laboratory activities. In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Sci Mathematics 1990;90:403-418.

  5. Tobin KG. Student task involvement and achievement in processoriented science activities. Sci Educ 1986;70:61-72.

  6. Roth WM. Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. J Res Sci Teaching 1994;31:197-223.

  7. Bybee R. Teaching science as inquiry. En: Minstrel J, Van Zee EH, eds. Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2000. pp. 20-46.

  8. Hodson D. Research on practical work in school and universities: in pursuit of better questions and better methods. En: Cachapuz AF, ed. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Research in Chemical Education 2001. CD-ROM), Universidad de Aveiro/Sociedad de Quimica, 2002. Disponible en http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/oise/UserFiles/File/AR_2001_2002.pdf.

  9. Hodson D. Re-thinking old ways: towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies Sci Educ 1993;22:85-142.

  10. Champagne AB, Gunstone RF, Klopfer LE. Instructional consequences of students’ knowledge about physical phenomena. En: West LHT, Pines AL, eds. Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. New York: Academic Press; 1985. pp. 61-68.

  11. Gunstone RF, Champagne AB. Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. En: Hegartzy-Hazel E, ed. The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum. London: Routledge; 1990. pp. 159-182.

  12. Shulman LS. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res 1986;15:4-14.

  13. Shulman LD, Tamir P. Research on teaching the natural sciences. En: Travers RMW, ed. Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1973. pp. 1098-1140.

  14. Dupin JJ, Joshua S. Analogies and ‘modeling analogies’ in teaching: some examples in basic electricity. Sci Educ 1987;73:791-806.

  15. Lazarowitz R, Tami, P. Research on using laboratory instruction in science. En: Gabel DL, ed. Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan; 1994; pp. 94-130.

  16. Lazarowitz R, Karsenty G. Cooperative learning and student academic achievement, process skills, learning environment and self-esteem in 10th grade biology. En: Sharan S, ed. Cooperative Learning, Theory and Research. New York: Praeger; 1990. pp. 123-149.

  17. Hofstein A, Lunetta VN. The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-first Century. Wilmington, DE: Wiley Periodicals; 2003.

  18. Gasca-González H. Crónica de la Facultad de Medicina. Tomo I: 1950- 1971. México: UNAM; 1997.

  19. Gasca-González H. Crónica de la Facultad de Medicina. Tomo II. 1971-1991. México: UNAM; 1997.

  20. Varela-Ruiz ME. Procesos cognitivos: ¿cómo y por qué aprenden los adultos? La educación médica en el siglo XXI. Colección Memoria. México: Alfil; 2009; pp. 121-138.

  21. De Torres JS, Tornay F, Gómez E. Procesos psicológicos básicos. España: McGraw-Hill-Interamericana; 1999.

  22. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR. How People Learn. Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2000.

  23. Mayor J, Suengas A, González J. Estrategias metacognitivas, aprender a aprender y aprender a pensar. Madrid: Síntesis; 1999.

  24. Coll C, Solé I. Aprendizaje significativo y ayuda pedagógica. Cuadernos de Pedagogía 1989;168:63-68.

  25. Facultad de Medicina. Plan de Estudios y Programas Académicos de la Licenciatura de Médico Cirujano. México: UNAM; 2010. p. 152.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com