19 General introduction 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. 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. 3. Inra JA, Pelletier S, Kumar NL, Barnes EL, Shields HM. An active learning curriculum improves fellows’ knowledge and faculty teaching skills. Adv Med Educ. 2017;8:359–64. 4. Michael J. Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. Coll Teach. 2007;55(2):42–7. 5. 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. 6. Heck AJ, Cross CE, Tatum VY, Chase AJ. Active learning among health professions’ educators: perceptions, barriers, and use. Med Sci Educ. 2023;33(3):719–27. 7. Fredricks JA, Reschly AL, Christenson SL. Interventions for student engagement: overview and state of the field. London, United Kingdom: Elsevier; 2019. 8. Chi MTH, Adams J, Bogusch EB, Bruchok C, Kang S, Lancaster M, et al. Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cogn Sci. 2018;42(6):1777–832. 9. Bonwell CC, Eison JA. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1 [Internet]. Washington, D.C: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development; 1991. Available from: https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED336049.pdf 10. Barkley EF. Student engagement techniques: a handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2010. 11. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS. 2014;111(23):8410–5. 12. Brophy J, Alleman J. Activities as instructional tools: a framework for analysis and evaluation. Educ Res. 1991;20(4):9–23. 13. Ford MJ. Critique in academic disciplines and active learning of academic content. Camb J Educ. 2010;40(3):265–80. 14. Lombardi D, Shipley TF, Astronomy Team, Biology Team, Chemistry Team, Engineering Team, Geography Team, Geoscience Team, and Physics Team. The curious construct of active learning. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2021;22(1):8–43. 15. King A. From sage on the stage to guide on the side. Coll Teach. 1993;41(1):30–5. 16. Michael J. Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Adv Physiol Educ. 2006;30(4):159– 67. 17. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ. 2004;93(3):223–31. 18. Schneider M, Preckel F. Variables associated with achievement in higher education: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(6):565–600. 19. Kusurkar RA, Ten Cate TJ. AM last page: education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire: self-determination theory and motivation in medical students. Acad Med. 2013;88(6):904. 20. Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S. Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science. 2011;332(6034):1213–6. 21. Kuh GD, Cruce TM, Shoup R, Kinzie J, Gonyea RM. Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. J High Educ. 2008;79(5):540–63. 22. Schmidt HG, Cohen-Schotanus J, Arends LR. Impact of problem-based, active learning on graduation rates for 10 generations of Dutch medical students. Med Educ. 2009;43(3):211–8. 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw