Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Let’s talk about integration: a study of students’ understandings of integration

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today, the knowledge concerning clinical reasoning is advanced enough to translate into curriculum interventions such as an integrated curriculum, in which science theory and clinical practice can be interwoven effectively. However, the interpretations of what integration means differ and the purpose of this study was to elicit how students understand integration. This study was carried out using an interpretative perspective. Medical students, in their 2nd year of study, were asked to apply basic science knowledge from all previous courses to clinical cases in an examination. Subsequent to the examination, focus group interviews were conducted. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed by the use of qualitative content analysis. The analysis revealed how students comprehended integration: as the creation of wholeness, as relating new knowledge to core concepts, as reasoning, as application and as collaboration between teachers. The five categories were linked to three dimensions: intra-personal, inter-personal and organizational, each of which resonates with different theories of how expertise is developed. The outcome of this study adds to our understanding of how students conceptualize integration. The categories of ‘integration’ drawn out by the study are helpful in promoting further discussion of how eliciting students’ own reports of cognition and may help the ongoing design of curricula by putting students at the center of the curriculum design process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajjawi, R., & Higgs, J. (2008). Learning to reason: A journey of professional socialisation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13(2), 133–150. doi:10.1007/s10459-006-9032-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ark, T. K., Brooks, L. R., & Eva, K. W. (2007). The benefits of flexibility: The pedagogical value of instructions to adopt multifaceted diagnostic reasoning strategies. Medical Education, 41(3), 281–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleakley, A. (2006). Broadening conceptions of learning in medical education: The message from team working. Medical Education, 40(2), 150–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleakley, A. (2009). Curriculum as conversation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(3), 297–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleakley, A. (2012). The proof is in the pudding: Putting actor-network-theory to work in medical education. Medical Teacher, 34(6), 462–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolander Laksov, K., Lonka, K., & Josephson, A. (2008). How do medical teachers address the problem of transfer? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13(3), 345–360. doi:10.1007/s10459-006-9048-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnevier, A., Josephson, A., & Scheja, M. (2012). Potentialities for learning in medical students’ ways of approaching a diagnostic task. Higher Education, 64(3), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coderre, S., Mandin, H., Harasym, P., & Fick, G. (2003). Diagnostic reasoning strategies and diagnostic success. Medical education, 37(8), 695–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper, I., Worley, P., Strasser, R., & Strasser, I. (2011). Rural longitudinal integrated clerkships: Lessons from two programs on different continents. Rural and Remote Health, 11(2), 1665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Lincoln: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornan, T., Littlewood, S., Margolis, S. A., Scherpbier, A., Spencer, J., & Ypinazar, V. (2006). How can experience in clinical and community settings contribute to early medical education? A BEME systematic review#. Medical Teacher, 28(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. doi:10.1080/13639080020028747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finch, H., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fyrenius, A., Wirell, S., & Silén, C. (2007). Student approaches to achieving understanding—approaches to learning revisited. Studies in Higher Education, 32(2), 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil, K. J. G. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community: Beyond self and community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 163–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden, R. M. (2000). The integration ladder: A tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Medical Education, 34(7), 551–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassirer, J. P. (2010). Teaching clinical reasoning: Case-based and coached. Academic Medicine, 85(7), 1118–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, D. M. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Applying educational theory in practice. British Medical Journal, 326(7382), 213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, S. (2012). Rethinking clinical reasoning: Time for a dialogical turn. Medical Education, 46(12), 1174–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. (2005). Research in clinical reasoning: Past history and current trends. Medical Education, 39(4), 418–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. (2009). Teaching basic science to optimize transfer. Medical Teacher, 31(9), 807–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogur, B., & Hirsh, D. (2009). Learning through longitudinal patient care-narratives from the Harvard Medical School-Cambridge Integrated Clerkship. Academic Medicine, 84(7), 844–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F., Chaudhari, S., Karlin, D. R., & Briedis, D. J. (2005). Knowledge integration and reasoning as a function of instruction in a hybrid medical curriculum. Journal of Dental Education, 69(11), 1186–1211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, V., Yoskowitz, N., & Arocha, J. (2009). Towards effective evaluation and reform in medical education: A cognitive and learning sciences perspective. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(5), 791–812. doi:10.1007/s10459-007-9091-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, H. P. (1993). On acquiring expertise in medicine. Educational Psychology Review, 5(3), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., & Rikers, R. M. (2007). How expertise develops in medicine: Knowledge encapsulation and illness script formation. Medical Education, 41(12), 1133–1139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tekian, R., & Yudowsky, A. (1998). A model workshop in curriculum development for international medical audiences. Medical Teacher, 20(3), 258–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory in health professional education: Design principles and strategies. Medical Education, 44(1), 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varkey, P., Karlapudi, S., Rose, S., Nelson, R., & Warner, M. (2009). A systems approach for implementing practice-based learning and improvement and systems-based practice in graduate medical education. Academic Medicine, 84(3), 335–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virtanen, V., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2010). University students’ and teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning in the biosciences. Instructional Science, 38(4), 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, L., Prideaux, D., Worley, P., & Greenhill, J. (2011). Demonstrating the value of longitudinal integrated placements to general practice preceptors. Medical Education, 45(5), 455–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weurlander, M., Söderberg, M., Scheja, M., Hult, H., & Wernerson, A. (2012). Exploring formative assessment as a tool for learning: Students’ experiences of different methods of formative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 747–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelmsson, N., Dahlgren, L. O., Hult, H., & Josephson, A. (2011). On the anatomy of understanding. Studies in Higher Education, 36(2), 153–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unit of Medical Education, Department of Learning, Instruction, Management and Ethics (LIME), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Klara Bolander Laksov & Cormac McGrath

  2. Centre for Medical Education, Department of Learning, Instruction, Management and Ethics (LIME), 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden

    Klara Bolander Laksov

  3. Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

    Anna Josephson

Authors
  1. Klara Bolander Laksov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cormac McGrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Josephson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klara Bolander Laksov.

Appendix

Appendix

  • What are your reactions to the examination you just experienced?

  • What does it mean to integrate knowledge to you?

  • Are you able to integrate your knowledge from courses and clinical practice you have experienced so far in your education? Please exemplify how?

  • Considering your view on integration, how do you think that the exam required you to do that?

  • What type of teaching and assessment do you think best stimulate you to integrate knowledge/theory and practice?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Laksov, K.B., McGrath, C. & Josephson, A. Let’s talk about integration: a study of students’ understandings of integration. Adv in Health Sci Educ 19, 709–720 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9499-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9499-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation