­
medigraphic.com
ISSN 2683-2348 (Electronic)
Federación Latinoamericana de Simulación Clínica y Seguridad del Paciente

2020, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Simulación Clínica 2020; 2 (3)

Two-way learning and pedagogical profile of the facilitator in self-learning methodology in simulated environments (MAES©). A qualitative exploratory study

Garre-Baños N, Díaz-Agea JL

Language: Spanish
References: 41
Page: 106-132
PDF size: 249.43 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The pedagogical profile and the teacher’s learning has been a little questioned element in university teaching. It is assumed that the teacher is the guide and the source of knowledge of the students in traditional education perspective. However, in clinical simulation, a group interaction occurs that creates a more open learning environment. Objective: To analyze the perception of facilitators in simulation with the self-learning method in simulated environments (MAES©) regarding their pedagogical profile and explore the phenomenon of two-way learning. Materials and methods: A qualitative exploratory study with a phenomenological orientation using the focus group technique. The group was made up of MAES© facilitators of medicine and nursing from the region of Murcia (Spain). Results: They refer to the exchange of knowledge and learning that the facilitator acquires thanks to the contributions of the students in clinical simulation. Concepts such as self-learning, facilitator functions and rejection of the traditional role of the teacher appeared. Dimensions related to the development of the sessions, the promotion of the autonomy of the students or the importance of establishing a basal level of competences before prioritizing the learning objectives appeared. Conclusion: The profile of the MAES© facilitator is that of a teacher who motivates the search for knowledge and the autonomy of the group of students. Two-way learning implies that teachers also learn from students.


REFERENCES

  1. De León IJ. Los estilos de enseñanza pedagógicos: una propuesta de criterios para su determinación. Revista de Investigación. 2005; (57): 69-978.

  2. Manterola C. Enseñar a enseñar. Escuela de educación. Venezuela: Universidad Central de Venezuela; 2002.

  3. Astolfi JP. Aprender en la escuela. Chile: Dolmen; 1997.

  4. Domjan M. The principles of learning and behavior. Nelson Education; 2014.

  5. Remy HD. El constructivismo en los procesos de enseñanza aprendizaje. México, D.F.: Editorial Plaza y Valdés; 2004.

  6. Daniels H. Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge; 2016. p. 211.

  7. Shokouhi M, Shakouri N. Revisiting Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal development: towards a stage of proximity. J Eng Lit Cult. 2015; 3 (2): 60-63.

  8. Ausubel DP. The facilitation of meaningful verbal learning in the classroom. Educ Psychol. 1977; 12: 162-178.

  9. Bandura A, Grusec JE, Menlove FL. Observational learning as a function of symbolization and incentive set. Child Dev. 1966; 37 (3): 499-506.

  10. Pupo EA. Los estilos de enseñanza, una necesidad para la atención de los estilos de aprendizaje en la educación universitaria. Revista de Estilos de Aprendizaje [Internet]. 2012 [citado 9 de octubre de 2020]; 5 (10). Disponible en: http://revistaestilosdeaprendizaje.com/article/view/962

  11. García JML. Los estilos de aprendizaje y los estilos de enseñanza. Un modelo de categorización de estilos de aprendizaje de los alumnos de enseñanza secundaria desde el punto de vista del profesor. Anales de Psicología. 1996; 12 (2): 179-184.

  12. Gallardo SCH. El constructivismo social como apoyo al aprendizaje en línea. Apertura [Internet]. 2007 [citado 9 de octubre de 2020]; (7). Disponible en: http://www.udgvirtual.udg.mx/aperturacopy/index.php/apertura/article/view/1209

  13. Harden RM, Crosby JR. The good teacher is more than a lecturer–the twelve roles of the teacher. AMEE Medical Education Guide No 20. Medical Teacher. 2000; 22 (4): 334-347.

  14. Dieckmann P, Friis SM, Lippert A, Østergaard D. The art and science of debriefing in simulation: Ideal and practice. Medical Teacher. 2009; 31 (7): e287-e294.

  15. Brydges R, Nair P, Ma I, Shanks D, Hatala R. Directed self-regulated learning versus instructor-regulated learning in simulation training. Medical Education. 2012; 46 (7): 648-656.

  16. Torales J, Kunzle-Elizeche HG, Barrios I, Rios-González CM, Barrail AR, González-Urbieta I, et al. Los “doce roles del docente de medicina”: un estudio piloto de tres universidades públicas de Paraguay. Mem Inst Investig Cienc Salud [Internet]. 2018 [citado 9 de octubre de 2020];16 (2): 55-64. Disponible en: http://archivo.bc.una.py/index.php/RIIC/article/view/1363

  17. García-Merino JD, Urionabarrenetxea S, Bañales-Mallo A, García-Merino JD, Urionabarrenetxea S, Bañales-Mallo A. Cambios en metodologías docentes y de evaluación: ¿Mejoran el rendimiento del alumnado universitario? Revista electrónica de Investigación Educativa. 2016; 18 (3): 1-18.

  18. Díaz Agea J, Leal Costa C, García JA. Metodología de autoaprendizaje en entornos simulados (MAES©). Evidentia. 2014; 11: 1-6.

  19. Rothwell WJ, Sensenig KJ. The sourcebook for self-directed learning. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development; 1999. p. 248.

  20. Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM. Problem-based learning: an approach to medical education. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1980. p. 225.

  21. Barkley EF, Cross KP, Major CH. Collaborative learning techniques: a handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons; 2014. p. 321.

  22. Damon W. Peer education the untapped potential. J Appl Dev Psychol. 1984; 5 (4): 331-343.

  23. Leal Costa C, Megías Nicolás A, García Méndez JA, de Gracia Adánez Martínez MG, Díaz Agea JL. Enseñando con metodología de autoaprendizaje en entornos simulados (MAES©): Un estudio cualitativo entre profesores y alumnos de grado en Enfermería. Educ Médica. 2018; 20: 52-58.

  24. Díaz JL, Leal C, García JA, Hernández E, Adánez MG, Sáez A. Self-Learning methodology in simulated environments (MAES©): elements and characteristics. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016; 12: 268-274.

  25. Díaz Agea JL, Megías Nicolás A, García Méndez JA, Adánez Martínez MG, Leal Costa C. Improving simulation performance through Self-Learning Methodology in Simulated Environments (MAES©). Nurse Educ Today. 2019; 76: 62-67.

  26. Bradbury-Jones C, Sambrook S, Irvine F. The phenomenological focus group: an oxymoron? J Adv Nurs. 2009; 65 (3): 663-671.

  27. Juguera Rodriguez L, Pardo Rios M, Leal Costa C, Castillo Hermoso M, Perez Alonso N, Diaz Agea JL. Relatives of people with spinal cord injury: a qualitative study of caregivers’ metamorphosis. Spinal Cord. 2018; 56 (6): 548-559.

  28. Edward KL, Welch T. The extension of Colaizzi’s method of phenomenological enquiry. Contemp Nurse. 2011; 39 (2): 163-171.

  29. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19 (6): 349-357.

  30. INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL standards of best practice: SimulationSM facilitation. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2016; 12: S16-S20.

  31. Kelly M, Guinea S. Facilitating healthcare simulations. En: Healthcare simulation education [Internet]. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017 [citado 9 de octubre de 2020]. p. 143-151. Disponible en: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119061656.ch19

  32. Agra G, Soares Formiga N, de Oliveira PS, Lopes Costa MM, Melo Fernandes MG, Lima da Nóbrega MM. Analysis of the concept of meaningful learning in light of the Ausubel’s theory. Rev Bras Enferm. 2019; 72 (1): 248-255.

  33. Daley BJ, Durning SJ, Torre DM. Using concept maps to create meaningful learning in medical education. Med Ed Publish [Internet]. 2016 [citado 9 de octubre de 2020]; 5 (1). Disponible en: http://www.mededpublish.org/manuscripts/380/v1

  34. Bagnasco A, Cadorin L, Tolotti A, Pagnucci N, Rocco G, Sasso L. Instruments measuring meaningful learning in undergraduate healthcare students: a systematic review protocol. J Adv Nurs. 2015; 71 (3): 655-664.

  35. Akpan JP, Beard LA. Using constructivist teaching strategies to enhance academic outcomes of students with special needs. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2016; 4 (2): 392-398.

  36. Rudolph JW, Raemer DB, Simon R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: the role of the presimulation briefing. Simul Healthc. 2014; 9 (6): 339-349.

  37. Rutherford-Hemming T, Lioce L, Breymier T. Guidelines and essential elements for prebriefing. Simul Healthc. 2019; 14 (6): 409-414.

  38. INACSL Standards Committee. INACSL standards of best practice: SimulationSM simulation glossary. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2016; 12: S39-S47.

  39. Lopreiato JO, Downing D, Gammon W, Lioce L, Sittner B, Slot V, et al. Healthcare simulation dictionary. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and. Quality; 2016.

  40. Roxburgh M. Undergraduate student nurses’ perceptions of two practice learning models: a focus group study. Nurse Educ Today. 2014; 34 (1): 40-46.

  41. Coombs NM, Missen K, Allen L. Beyond simulation - extracurricular volunteering in nursing education: a focus group. Nurse Educ Today. 2020; 96: 104603.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

    Este sitio utiliza cookies   Estoy de acuerdo