medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-5057 (Print)
Investigación en Educación Médica

2020, Number 34

<< Back Next >>

Inv Ed Med 2020; 9 (34)

Changes in medical education: innovations in assessment and technological trends (part 2)

Luna LV, González-Flores P

Language: Spanish
References: 36
Page: 87-99
PDF size: 653.37 Kb.


ABSTRACT

A previous research paper discussed the results of a critical literature review that identified innovative approaches in curriculum and teaching for medical education in the post-Flexner era. In this article, a second group of findings are presented: new approaches to assessment, cluding the theoretical and methodological innovations that have enabled the systematic evaluation of doctors in different contexts, both for accreditation and certification purposes, as well as for the continuous improvement of medical education process and the profession. Advances in technology that have contributed to the transformation of medical education are described and their impact on innovation is analyzed.


REFERENCES

  1. González P, Luna de la Luz V. La transformación de la educación médica en el último siglo: innovaciones curriculares y didácticas (parte 1) 2018 Inv Ed Med. 2019 apr;30(8):95-109.

  2. Miller MD, Linn RL, Gronlund NE. Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. 11a ed. USA: Pearson; 2013. 574.

  3. van Der Vleuten, C. The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Advances in Health Sciences Education 1996;1:41-7.

  4. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1910, editor Carnegie Bulletin. New York; 1910, 364 p.

  5. NBME, National Board of Medical Examiners Centennial 1915-2015. [Internet] USA; [consultado 5 febrero 2020] Disponible en: https://www.nbme.org/

  6. Alkin M, Vo TA. Evaluation Essentials. 2d ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2018.

  7. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/ performance. AcadMed. 1990;65(Suppl):S63-S67.

  8. Shumway JM, Harden RM. AMEE Guide No. 25: The assessment of learning outcomes for the competent and reflective physician. Med Teach. 2003;25(6):569-84.

  9. Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodríguez MC. A review of multiple-choice item writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Appl Meas Educ. 2002;15(3):309-33.

  10. Downing S. Item response theory: applications of modern test theory in medical education Med Ed. 2003;37:739-45.

  11. Seo DG. Overview and current management of computerized adaptive testing in licensing/certification examinations. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2017;14:17.

  12. Harden RM, Stevenson M, Downie WW. Assessment of clinical competence using objective structured examination. Medical Education. 1975;1:447-51.

  13. ACGME and ABMS. Toolbox of assessment methods. [Versión electrónica] En: A product of the joint initiative of the ACGME Outcome Project of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Board. 2000; Versión 1.1.

  14. CANMEDS. Assessment tools handbook: an introductory guide to assessment methods for the CANMEDs Competencies. 1a e. Canada, 2006.

  15. Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan M, Hart D, Smee S, Touchie C, Holmboe ES, Frank JR. Core principles of assessment in competency- based medical education. MedTeach. 2017;39(6):609- 616.

  16. Dauphinee W, Boulet J, Norcini J, Considerations that will determine if competency-based assessment is a sustainable innovation Adv in Hearth Sci Educ. 2018.

  17. Shepard LA. The Role of assessment in a learning culture. Educ Res. 2000;29(7):4-14.

  18. Norcini J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Tech. 2007:855-71.

  19. Mortaz S, Mohammad J, Rasoul M, Mandana S, Saharnaz N, Nornici J. The utility of mini-clinical evaluation exercise in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: A BEME review: BEME Guide No. 59. Med Teach. 2019.

  20. Tekian A, Watling C, Roberts T, Steinert Y, Norcini J. Qualitative and quantitative feedback in the context of competency- based education. Med Teach. 2017;9(12):1245-9.

  21. Schuwirth L, Van der Vleuten C. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. MedTeach. 2011;33(6);478-85.

  22. Gade SA, Chari SN, Chalak A. Use of mini-CEX as a teaching learning method in physiology for undergraduate medical students. Natl J Physiol Pharm. 2017;7(4):482-5.

  23. Paukert JL, Richards ML, Olney C. An encounter card system for increasing feebback to students. Am J Surg. 2002;183:300-4.

  24. Martin, Regehr, Reznick, Macrae, Murnaghan, Hutchison & Brown Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg. 1997;84(2)273-8.

  25. Heeneman S, Oudkerk A, Schuwirth L, van del Vleuten E, Driessen E. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: theory versus practice. Med Educ. 2015;49(5);487-98.

  26. Riley B, Riley G. Innovation in graduate medical education – using a competency based medical education curriculum. International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine. 2017;23:36-41.

  27. Cook D, Triola M. Educational Technologies in Health Professions Education: Current State and Future Directions. In: Stuart G, Triola M. 2015 Enhancing Health Professions Education through Technology: Building a Continuously Learning Health System. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation. 2015;71-111. Disponible en https://macyfoundation.org/assets/reports/publications/ macy_foundation_monograph_oct2015_webpdf.pdf

  28. Shah D. By The Numbers: MOOCs in 2019. Class Central. MOOC Report [Internet]. 2019 [consultado el 5 de febrero de 2020] Disponible en: https://www.classcentral.com/report/ mooc-stats-2019/

  29. Wiecha J, Heyden R, Sternthal E, Merialdi. M Learning in a Virtual World: Experience with Using Second Life for Medical Education. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e1.

  30. Kamphuis, C, Barsom E, Schijven M, Christoph N. Augmented reality in medical education? Perspect Med Educ. 2014;3:300-11.

  31. Eberly Center. Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation [Internet]. Pittsburgh. PA: Carnegie Mellon University c2020. Curriculum Mapping Tool; 2020 [consultado el 2020 Feb 06]. Disponible en: https://www.cmu.edu/ teaching/assessment/assessprogram/tools/Curriculum%20 Mapping%20Tool.html

  32. Gillespie C, Zabar S, Altshuler L, Fox J, Pusic M, Xu J, Kalet A. The Research on Medical Education Outcomes (ROMEO) Registry: Addressing Ethical and Practical Challenges of Using “Bigger,” Longitudinal Educational Data, Acad Med. 2016 May;91(5):690-5.

  33. Masters K. Artificial intelligence in medical education. Med Teach. 2019 Sep;41(9):976-80.

  34. Zhao H, Guijie L, Feng W. Research on Application of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education. International Conference on Engineering Simulation and Intelligent Control. 2018. [Internet] IEEE Xplore [Consultado el: 2020 Feb 7]. Disponible en: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8530428

  35. Tierney WG, Lanford M. Conceptualizing innovation in higher education. Vol. 25, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Springer, Cham; 2010 [citado 2019 Jan 18]. 425- 48 p. Disponible en: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3- 319-26829-3_1

  36. Chan T, Sebok-Syer S, Thoma B, Wise A, Sherbino J, Pusic M. Learning Analytics in Medical Education Assessment: The Past, the Present, and the Future. AEM Education and Training. 2018 Ap;2(2):178-87.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com