PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Cees P.M. Van Der Vleuten

Publications and source records attributed to Cees P.M. Van Der Vleuten.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Small group learning in the final year of a medical degree: a quantitative and qualitative evaluation.

The new undergraduate medical curriculum in Manchester uses problem-based learning (PBL) throughout the course. However, the major difference from other PBL schools is that in years 3 & 4 (phase 2) the students can use clinical experience when discussing the paper cases. The process is then developed further in year 5 (phase 3), in which there are no set PBL 'triggers' and students bring their own cases to the groups for discussion. In this study, we have explored what happens in the phase 3 (year 5) group sessions and how the students view them. A questionnaire and focus groups were used to generate data, from which a model was developed of what happens in a 'good' group session. The data suggest that most groups run on a case-presentation and discussion format, most commonly about clinical management and diagnosis. Students want tutors to act as an expert resource and to be flexible in allowing students to direct the discussions. University guidance about the group sessions was not generally used.

Journal Article↗

Quality of student-generated learning issues in a problem-based curriculum.

In a problem-based curriculum students generate learning issues that are the guidelines for their individual study. In an earlier study it was found that a useful learning issue contains a keyword that demarcates the content of a certain topic to be studied and is formulated concisely and unambiguously for all members of the tutorial group. This study investigates two questions. First, how many learning issues can be classified as being of good or bad quality as evaluated against three criteria? Second, what are examples of well and badly formulated learning issues? Learning issues were collected for two problems in the first year during two tutorial meetings of the Maastricht Medical School in the academic year 1998-99. In the next academic year, 12 first year-students were asked to judge the learning issues for each problem against three criteria. The results showed that 21% of the learning issues for one problem and 32% for the other problem were classified as scoring high on all three characteristics. A very small percentage of learning issues (5% and 2%) were classified as scoring low on all three characteristics. Most learning issues scored differently on each of the characteristics. Although most learning issues contain a keyword, many of them were formulated ambiguously and not concisely. It is concluded that first-year students are not yet able to formulate clear learning issues.

Journal Article↗