METHODS: We followed the guidelines suggested by Whetten for constructing a theoretical model for framework development. There were four phases in the model development. In the first phase, different literature review methods were used, and additional students' perspectives were collected through focus group discussions. Then, using the data, we constructed the theoretical model in the second phase. In the third phase, we validated the newly developed model and its related guidelines. Finally, we performed response process validation of the model with a group of medical teachers.
RESULTS: The developed systematic assessment resilience framework (SAR) promotes four constructs: self-control, management, engagement, and growth, through five phases of assessment: assessment experience, assessment direction, assessment preparation, examiner focus, and student reflection. Each phase contains a number of practical guidelines to promote resilience. We rigorously triangulated each approach with its theoretical foundations and evaluated it on the basis of its content and process. The model showed high levels of content and face validity.
CONCLUSIONS: The SAR model offers a novel guideline for fostering resilience through assessment planning and practice. It includes a number of attainable and practical guidelines for enhancing resilience. In addition, it opens a new horizon for HPE students' future use of this framework in the new normal condition (post COVID 19).
METHODS: We conducted a phenomenological study on medical students at a public university. We utilized focus group discussions (FGDs) to investigate their experiences of TA. The FGDs were transcribed verbatim, and these transcripts were analyzed using Atlas.ti software. The thematic analysis followed the recommended guidelines.
RESULTS: Seven FGD sessions were conducted with 45 students. Three major themes emerged: the students, their academic resources, and the examiner. Each theme comprised mutually exclusive subthemes. The "students" theme was divided into negative vs. positive thoughts and self-negligence vs. self-care, "academic recources" into heavy curriculum vs. facilitative curricular aids, and "examiner" into criticism vs. feedback and strict vs. kind approaches.
CONCLUSION: This study provides a solid foundation for policymakers and decision makers in medical education to improve current assessment practices and student well-being. Medical students will be able to significantly alter and reduce TA if they are provided with additional psychological support and their examiners are trained on how to deal with examinees.
METHODS: We followed a systematic approach for the development of a framework about e-professionalism. Qualitative data was collected from a systematic review and a delphi study, while quantitative data was collected by administering a validated questionnaire social networking sites for medical education (snsme). Subsequently, categorization of the selected data and identifying concepts, deconstruction and further categorizing concepts (philosophical triangulation), integration of concepts (theoretical triangulation), and synthesis and resynthesis of concepts were performed.
RESULTS: The initial process yielded six overlapping concepts from personal, professional, character (implicit) and characteristic (explicit) domains: environment, behavior, competence, virtues, identity, and mission. Further integration of data was done for the development of the medical education e-professionalism (meep) framework with a central concept of a commitment to mission. The mission showed deep connections with values (conformity, beneficence, universalism, and integrity), behaviours (communication, self-awareness, tolerance, power), and identity (reflection, conscientiousness, self-directed, self-actualization). The data demonstrated that all medical professionals require updated expertise in sns participation.
CONCLUSION: The meep framework recognises a mission-based social contract by the medical community. This mission is largely driven by professional values, behaviors and identity. Adherence to digital standards, accountability, empathy, sensitivity, and commitment to society are essential elements of the meep framework.
METHODS: This study employed a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-testing. It involved the training of course coordinators in implementing the SAR framework and its integration into the daily learning activities. Fourth-year medical students were assessed before and after the intervention using standardized measures of resilience, anxiety, depression, burnout, and academic stress. Data were analyzed using quantitative methods and thematic analysis for qualitative feedback.
RESULTS: Post-intervention, students demonstrated a significant increase in resilience scores (p 0.05). Qualitative feedback of the course coordinators highlighted an improved learning environment, increased coping strategies, and a more supportive academic culture.
CONCLUSION: The SAR framework significantly contributes to enhancing medical students' resilience and reducing psychological distress. Its implementation suggests a promising approach to fostering a supportive educational environment that not only addresses the psychological challenges faced by medical students but also enhances their academic performance and overall well-being. Further research is warranted to explore the long-term impacts of SAR across different medical education contexts.
METHODS: A randomised controlled trial involving 197 participants from three institutions was conducted. The control group attended a freestyle lecture on the gross anatomy of the heart, delivered by a qualified anatomist from each institution. The intervention group attended a CLT-bLM-based lecture on a similar topic, delivered by the same lecturer, three weeks thereafter. The lecturers had attended a CLT-bLM workshop that allowed them to prepare for the CLT-bLM-based lecture over the course of three weeks. The students' ratings on their cognitive engagement and internal motivation were evaluated immediately after the lecture using a validated Learners' Engagement and Motivation Questionnaire. The differences between variables were analysed and the results were triangulated with the focus group discussion findings that explored students' experience while attending the lecture.
RESULTS: The intervention group has a significantly higher level of cognitive engagement than the control group; however, no significant difference in internal motivation score was found. In addition, the intervention group reported having a good learning experience from the lectures.
CONCLUSION: The guideline successfully stimulated students' cognitive engagement and learning experience, which indicates a successful stimulation of students' germane resources. Stimulation of these cognitive resources is essential for successful cognitive processing, especially when learning a difficult subject such as anatomy.