排序方式： 共有20条查询结果，搜索用时 60 毫秒
1.
Michelle D. Lazarus Gordon L. Kauffman Jr. Milind J. Kothari Timothy J. Mosher Matthew L. Silvis John R. Wawrzyniak Daniel T. Anderson Kevin P. Black 《Anatomical sciences education》2014,7(5):379-388
Current undergraduate medical school curricular trends focus on both vertical integration of clinical knowledge into the traditionally basic science‐dedicated curricula and increasing basic science education in the clinical years. This latter type of integration is more difficult and less reported on than the former. Here, we present an outline of a course wherein the primary learning and teaching objective is to integrate basic science anatomy knowledge with clinical education. The course was developed through collaboration by a multi‐specialist course development team (composed of both basic scientists and physicians) and was founded in current adult learning theories. The course was designed to be widely applicable to multiple future specialties, using current published reports regarding the topics and clinical care areas relying heavily on anatomical knowledge regardless of specialist focus. To this end, the course focuses on the role of anatomy in the diagnosis and treatment of frequently encountered musculoskeletal conditions. Our iterative implementation and action research approach to this course development has yielded a curricular template for anatomy integration into clinical years. Key components for successful implementation of these types of courses, including content topic sequence, the faculty development team, learning approaches, and hidden curricula, were developed. We also report preliminary feedback from course stakeholders and lessons learned through the process. The purpose of this report is to enhance the current literature regarding basic science integration in the clinical years of medical school. Anat Sci Educ 7: 379–388. © 2014 American Association of Anatomists. 相似文献
2.
Satish Nargundkar Milind Shrikhande 《Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education》2014,12(1):55-72
Student Evaluations of Instruction (SEIs) from about 6,000 sections over 4 years representing over 100,000 students at the college of business at a large public university are analyzed, to study the impact of noninstructional factors on student ratings. Administrative factors like semester, time of day, location, and instructor attributes like gender and rank are studied. The combined impact of all the noninstructional factors studied is statistically significant. Our study has practical implications for administrators who use SEIs to evaluate faculty performance. SEI scores reflect some inherent biases due to noninstructional factors. Appropriate norming procedures can compensate for such biases, ensuring fair evaluations. 相似文献
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
This section of Resonanceis meant to raise thoughtprovoking, interesting, or just plain brainteasing questions every month, and discuss answers a few
months later. Readers are welcome to send in suggestions for such questions, solutions to questions already posed, comments
on the solutions discussed in the journal, etc. to ResonanceIndian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore 560 080, with “Think It Over” written on the cover or card to help us sort the correspondence.
Due to limitations of space, it may not be possible to use all the material received. However, the coordinators of this section
(currently R Nityananda and C S Yogananda) will try and select items which best illustrate various ideas and concepts, for
inclusion in this section. 相似文献
9.
10.