Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 299–306 | Cite as

Considering the Yin and Yang of Teaching and Learning: a Resource for the Novice Educator

  • Tasha R. WyattEmail author
  • Sarah Gilliland
Monograph

Abstract

This paper introduces four key teaching and learning concepts that may be useful for novice educators new to the teaching and learning process. We have organized these concepts into the Chinese symbol of a yin–yang where one side captures what is needed for student learning to occur and, the other, what teachers need to do to prepare for teaching. This two-sided symbol brings together several practical ideas, such as cognitive load theory, co-construction of knowledge, and instructional design principles that may be useful for faculty new to teaching and learning.

Keywords

Learning theory Faculty development Cognitive load Instructional design Undergraduate medical education Teaching 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was not sought for this paper due to the nature of its contents.

Informed Consent

There are no participants, so no informed consent was needed.

References

  1. 1.
    Feinberg R, Koltz E. Getting started as a medical teacher in times of change. Med Sci Educ. 2015;25(1):69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Uttle B, White C, Gonzalez D. Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Stud Educ Eval. 2017;54:22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones K, Jones J, Vermette P. Six common lesson planning pitfalls—recommendations for novice educators. Education. 2011;131(4):845–64.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartell C. The challenges facing beginning teachers. Cultivating high-quality teaching through induction and mentoring. Northridge: Corwin; 2004. p. 1–19.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jensen GM, Mostrom E. Handbook of teaching and learning for physical therapists. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Grave WS, Dolmans DH, van der Vleuten CP. Profiles of effective tutors in problem-based learning: scaffolding student learning. Med Educ. 1999;33(12):901–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tharp RG, Estrada P, Dalton S, Yamauchi L. Teaching transformed: achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder: Westview Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andre T. Selected microinstructional methods to facilitate knowledge construction: implications for instructional design. In: Tennyson RD, Schott F, Seel N, Dijkstra S, editors. Instructional design: international perspective: theory, research, and models. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1997. p. 243–67.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katayama AD, Robinson DH. Getting students ‘partially’ involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. J Exp Educ. 2000;68(2):119–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mezirow J. Transformative learning: theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 1997;1997(74):5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robinson DH, Odom ABS, Hsieh Y, Vanderveen A, Katayama AD. Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial graphic organizer. J Educ Res. 2006;100(2):103–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leppink J, van den Heuvel A. The evolution of cognitive load theory and its application to medical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4(3):119–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-015-0192-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Merrienboer J, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):85–93.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greening T. Scaffolding for success in problem-based learning. Med Educ Online. 1998;3(1):4297.  https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v3i.4297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atkinson R, Shiffrin R. Human memory: a proposed system and its control mechanisms. The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory. New York: Academic Press; 1968. p. 549–97.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ. 2010;44(6):543–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03624.x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Issa N, Mayer RE, Schuller M, Wang E, Shapiro MB, DaRosa DA. Teaching for understanding in medical classrooms using multimedia design principles. Med Educ. 2013;47(4):388–96.  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Young JQ, van Merrienboer JJG, Durning S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: implications for medical education: AMEE guide no. 86. Med Teach. 2014;36(5):371–84.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Merrienboer JJG, Paas FGWC. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev. 1998;10(3):251–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Merrienboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educ Psychol Rev. 2005;17(2):147–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Croskerry P. Achieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9(11):1184–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Young J, van Merrienboer J, Durning S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: implications for medical education: AAME guide no. 86. Med Teach. 2014;36(5):371–84.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheung L. Using an instructional design model to teach medical procedures. Med Sci Educ. 2016;26:175–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wiggins G, McTighe J. Understanding by design. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Biggs J. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ. 1996;32:347–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thomas A, Saroyan A, Dauphinee W. Evidence-based practice: a review of theoretical assumptions and effectiveness of teaching and assessment interventions in health professions. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2011;16(2):253–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9251-6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McLaughlin JE, Roth MT, Glatt DM, Gharkholonarehe N, Davidson CA, Griffin LM, et al. The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Acad Med. 2014;89(2):236–43.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ferris H, O'Flynn D. Assessment in medical education; what are we trying to achieve? Int J Higher Educ. 2015;4(2):139–44.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(4):387–96.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vanderbilt A, Feldman M, Wood I. Assessment in undergraduate medical education: a review of course exams. Med Educ Online. 2013;18(1):20438.  https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v18i0.20438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jozefowicz RF, Koeppen BM, Case S, Galbraith R, Swanson D, Glew RH. The quality of in-house medical school examinations. Acad Med. 2002;77(2):156–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Downing SM. The effects of violating standard item writing principles on tests and students: the consequences of using flawed test items on achievement examinations in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2005;10(2):133–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-004-4019-5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wallach PM, Crespo LM, Holtzman KZ, Galbraith RM, Swanson DB. Use of a committee review process to improve the quality of course examinations. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2006;11(1):61–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-004-7515-8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Biggs J. What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Educ Res Dev. 1999;18(1):57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Durning S, Artino A, Boulet J, Van der Vleuten C, LaRochelle J, Arze B, et al. Making use of contrasting participants views of the same encounter. Med Educ. 2010;44:953–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Epstein RM, Hundert EM. Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA. 2002;287(2):226–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McLaughlin K, Coderre S, Mortis G, Fick G, Mandin H. Can concept sorting provide a reliable, valid and sensitive measure of medical knowledge structure? Adv Health Scie Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(3):265–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-005-6029-3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prislin MD, Lie D, Shapiro J, Boker J, Radecki S. Using standardized patients to assess medical students' professionalism. Acad Med. 2001;76(10 Suppl):S90–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vendrely A. Student assessment methods in physical therapy education: an overview and literature review. J Phys Ther Educ. 2002;16(2):64–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Innovation Institute (EII), Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior, Medical College of GeorgiaAugusta UniversityAugustaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physical TherapyWest Coast UniversityLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations