112 Chapter 5 REFERENCES 1. Kassab SE, El-Sayed W, Hamdy H. Student engagement in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2022;56(7):703–15. 2. Xu X, Bos NA, Wu H. The relationship between medical student engagement in the provision of the school’s education programme and learning outcomes. Med Teach. 2022;44(8):900–6. 3. Wong ZY, Liem GAD. Student engagement: current state of the construct, conceptual refinement, and future research directions. Educ Psychol Rev. 2022;34:107–38. 4. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(1):59–109. 5. Chi MTH, Wylie R. The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educ Psychol. 2014;49(4):219–43. 6. Onyura B, Baker L, Cameron B, Friesen F, Leslie K. Evidence for curricular and instructional design approaches in undergraduate medical education: an umbrella review. Med Teach. 2016;38(2):150–61. 7. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ. 2004;93(3):223–31. 8. Rocca KA. Student participation in the college classroom: an extended multidisciplinary literature review. Commun Educ. 2010;59(2):185–213. 9. Schneider M, Preckel F. Variables associated with achievement in higher education: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(6):565–600. 10. Kilgour JM, Grundy L, Monrouxe LV. A rapid review of the factors affecting healthcare students’ satisfaction with small-group, active learning methods. Teach Learn Med. 2016;28(1):15–25. 11. Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P, et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME guide no. 23. Med Teach. 2012;34(6):e421–44. 12. Walling A, Istas K, Bonaminio GA, Paolo AM, Fontes JD, Davis N, et al. Medical student perspectives of active learning: a focus group study. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29(2):173–80. 13. White C, Bradley E, Martindale J, Roy P, Patel K, Yoon M, et al. Why are medical students ‘checking out’ of active learning in a new curriculum? Med Educ. 2014;48(3):315–24. 14. Michael J. Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. Coll Teach. 2007;55(2):42–7. 15. Bucklin BA, Asdigian NL, Hawkins JL, Klein U. Making it stick: use of active learning strategies in continuing medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:44. 16. Henderson C, Dancy M, Niewiadomska-Bugaj M. Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Phys Rev Spec Top - Phys Educ Res. 2012;8(2):020104. 17. Owens DC, Sadler TD, Barlow AT, Smith-Walters C. Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Res Sci Educ. 2020;50:253–77. 18. Jacobs JCG, Wilschut J, van der Vleuten C, Scheele F, Croiset G, Kusurkar RA. An international study on teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching and corresponding teacher profiles. Med Teach. 2020;42(9):1000–4. 19. Trigwell K, Prosser M. Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. High Educ. 1996;32(1):77–87. 20. Calkins S, Johnson N, Light G. Changing conceptions of teaching in medical faculty. Med Teach. 2012;34(11):902–6. 21. Inra JA, Pelletier S, Kumar NL, Barnes EL, Shields HM. An active learning curriculum improves fellows’ knowledge and faculty teaching skills. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:359–64. 22. Deslauriers L, McCarty LS, Miller K, Callaghan K, Kestin G. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116(39):19251–7.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw