醫學教育研究之現況與展望－醫學人文社會教育師資培育工作坊

Medical Education Research: Status and Prospects-Workshop for Faculty Development in Medical Humanities and Social Education

劉競明(Ching-Ming Liu)

《Journal of Medical Education》 14卷1期 (2010/03) Pp. 58-65

https://doi.org/10.6145/jme.201003_14(1).0006

摘要

醫學教育研究品質的界定必須考慮三個議題。一、研究是為論證(argument)，二、改善論文的修辭(rhetoric)，三、判斷論文的品質。對於醫學教育研究之學術品質的定義，為思維的演進(progress of thought)，不拘泥於刻板的研究方法。其研究模式為：(1)問題界定，(2)研究問題衍生，(3)研究方法選擇，(4)回答問題。首先，任何研究之設計要先界定理念建構(conceptual framework)。好的學術論文包括下列八個要點：(1)相關性(Relevance)，(2)原創性(Originality)，(3)敘述清晰流暢(Written well)，(4)具時效性(Timely)，(5)嚴謹性(Rigour)，(6)重要性(Importance)，(7)研究倫理無瑕疵(Ethically sound)，(8)有趣性(Interesting)。Dr. Hodges 認為：「研究？簡言之就是始之於概念、問題或案例，而後將概念關連形成理念建構(conceptual framework)，發展出特定的研究問題，選擇研究面向、設計與工具，搜集資料並分析研究數據，然後解讀資訊呈現的結果，再討論其研究成果之真實性(validity)與可推演性(generalisability)，以及在臨床執業上的意涵(implications)。」評核機制的新發展，彌勒先生的教育成就鐵三角理論，說明了學習到評核的過程，由知道(knows)、知道如何做(knows how)、知道如何去表現所知道的知識(shows how)、去實踐（做）(does)。然而要瞭解學習對象究竟懂得多少？就必須使用評估的方法與工具。對於考題的建構，不僅應有前測及後測，每一題目也必須經由學生參與的委員會審查。量化研究與質性研究各有其優點及特定的目標與可靠性，用單一指標評估永遠比用多重指標效果差。然而評估對於不易量測及與領域知識無關的技巧(Domain-independent skills)，就涉及考官的主觀判定。此種人類決策的專家作為模式，將超越心理㈻與心理測量研究論述(psychometric discourse)。Expert human judgment將扮演著未來評核(assessment)與評鑑(accreditation)研究相當關鍵的角色。

關鍵字

醫學育研究 ； 理念建構 ； 評估 ； 醫學教育合作研究平台

並列摘要

Current issues in medical education research include: research as argument, improving the ”rhetoric”, and judging quality. A good research model identifies the problem, develops a research question, selects the methodology, and finally answers the question. Kelvin thought that the resulting research paper would have: (1) relevance, (2) rigour, (3) originality, (4) importance, (5) written well, (6) ethically sound, (7) timely, and (8) interesting. Hodges indicated that research started with an idea, problem or case. The idea should then be related to a conceptual framework and a specific research question developed. After selecting the research approach, design, and instruments, the researcher must then collect and analyze data, interpret the results and discuss the validity and generalisability of those results and provide practice implications. The assessment of medical education based on Miller's pyramid of competence: knows-knows how-shows how-does. In constructing any type of test questions, the Maastricht item review process in terms of pre-test and post-test reviews should be considered and students involved on the review committee. Qualitative and quantitative approaches have specific goals and reliabilities and multiple measures may be required. It is difficult to measure ”Domain-independent skills” with which human expertise moves beyond psychometric discourse and plays a major role in accreditation and assessment research. This still lies in the future.

並列關鍵字

medical education research ； conceptual framework ； assessment ； collaborative research platform

參考文獻

The Feynman model of problem-solving, Feynman Algorithm

Chen CZ: The applications and clinical evaluation of direct observations of procedural skill (DOPS), Department of General Surgery, Tri-Service Hospital. Available at: [http://www.tjcha.org.tw/Public/Download/20081125916463020.pdf]

Bordage, G.(2009).Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify.Med Educ.43,312-319.

Bordage, G.,Dawnson, B.(2003).Experimental study design and grant writing in eight steps and 28 questions.Med Educ.37,376-385.

Cook, D.A.,Bordage, G.,Schmidt, H.G.(2008).Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purpose of research in medical education.Med Educ.42,128-133.