95 Medical student engagement in small-group active learning 24. Grijpma JW, de la Croix A, Kleinveld JH, Meeter M, Kusurkar RA. Appreciating small-group active learning: what do medical students want, and why? A q-methodology study. Med Teach. 2021;43(4):411–20. 25. Kusurkar RA, Croiset G, Ten Cate OTJ. Twelve tips to stimulate intrinsic motivation in students through autonomy-supportive classroom teaching derived from self-determination theory. Med Teach. 2011;33(12):978–82. 26. Steinert Y. Twelve tips for effective small-group teaching in the health professions. Med Teach. 1996;18(3):203–7. 27. Anakin M, Jouart M, Timmermans J, Pinnock R. Student experiences of learning clinical reasoning. Clin Teach. 2020;17(1):52–7. 28. 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. 29. Schultz K. After the blackbird whistles: listening to silence in classrooms. Teach Coll Rec. 2010;112(11):2833–49. 30. Cooke G, Mitchell B. Silence is golden. Med Educ. 2018;52(8):786–8. 31. Lingard L. Language matters: towards an understanding of silence and humour in medical education. Med Educ. 2013;47(1):40–8. 32. Lee SS. Has medical education killed ‘silence’? Med Teach. 2017;39(4):444–5. 33. Frymier AB, Houser ML. The role of oral participation in student engagement. Commun Educ. 2016;65(1):83–104. 34. Mak-van der Vossen M, Peerdeman S, Kleinveld J, Kusurkar R. How we designed and implemented teaching, training, and assessment of professional behaviour at VUmc school of medical sciences Amsterdam. Med Teach. 2013;35(9):709–14. 35. Skiba DJ. On the horizon mobile devices: are they a distraction or another learning tool? Nurs Educ Perspect. 2011;32(3):195–7. 36. Wallace S, Clark M, White J. ‘It’s on my iPhone’: attitudes to the use of mobile computing devices in medical education, a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(4):e001099. 37. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(1):59–109. 38. Lyle J. Stimulated recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research. Br Educ Res J. 2003;29(6):861–78. 39. Calderhead J. Stimulated Recall: a Method for Research on Teaching. Br J Educ Psychol. 1981;51:211–7. 40. Gazdag E, Nagy K, Szivák J. “I spy with my little eyes...” the use of video stimulated recall methodology in teacher training – the exploration of aims, goals and methodological characteristics of vsr methodology through systematic literature review. Int J Educ Res. 2019;95:60–75. 41. Mackey A, Gass SM. Second language research: methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 2005. 42. Brooks J, McCluskey S, Turley E, King N. The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qual Res Psychol. 2015;12(2):202–22. 43. Kiger ME, Varpio L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Med Teach. 2020;42(8):1–9. 44. King N, Brooks JM. Template Analysis for Business and Management Students. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Research Methods; 2017. 45. Bowen GA. Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int J Qual Methods. 2016;5(3):12–23. 46. Varpio L, Ajjawi R, Monrouxe LV, O’Brien BC, Rees CE. Shedding the cobra effect: problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Med Educ. 2017;51(1):40–50. 4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw