EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 14 / Numéro 3 (août 2013) Pédagogie Médicale, 14 3 (2013) 169-186 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 14, Number 3, août 2013
Page(s) 169 - 186
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2013048
Published online 10 septembre 2013
  1. Kilminster SM, Jolly BC. Effective supervision in clinical settings: a literature review. Med Educ 2000;34:827-40. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dolmans DHJM, Wolfhagen HAP, Gerver WJ, De Grave W,Scherpbier AJJA. Providing physicians with feedback on how they supervise students during patient contacts. Med Teach 2004;26:409-14. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dornan T, Littlewood S, Margolis SA, Scherpbier A, Spencer J, Ypinazar V. BEME GUIDE 6: How can experience in clinical and community settings contribute to early medical education? A BEME systematic review. Med Teach 2006;28:3-18. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kilminster SM, Cottrell D, Grant J, Joly BC. AMEE Guide no. 27: Effective educational and clinical supervision. Med Teach 2007;29:2-19. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Saucier D, Paré L, Côté L, Baillargeon L. How core competencies are taught during clinical supervision: participatory action research in family medicine. Med Educ 2012;46:1194-205. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder W. Cultivating communities of practice. A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ericsson KA, Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 2004;79:S70-S81. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich PJ, Hoffman RR (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  9. Connell KJ, Bordage G, Chang RW, Howard BA, Sinacore J. Measuring promotion of thinking during precepting encounters in outpatient settings. Acad Med 1999;74:S10-S12. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bowen JL, Irby DM. Assessing quality and costs of education in the ambulatory setting: a review of the literature. Acad Med 2002;77:621-80. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jouquan J. Le raisonnement clinique et la supervision pédagogique sous l’éclairage des métaphores et des analogies. Pédagogie Médicale 2013;14:79-81. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins A, Brown JS, Newman SE. Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In: Resnick LB (ed). Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  13. van de Ridder JMM, Stokking KM, McGaghie, WC, ten Cate OTJ. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ 2008;42:189-97. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Archer JC. State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med Educ 2010;44:101-08. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Neher JO, Gordon KC, Meyer B, Stevens N. A five-step “microskills” model of clinical teaching. J Am Board Fam Pract 1992;5:419-24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wolpaw T, Côté L, Papp K, Bordage G. Student uncertainties drive teaching during case presentations: More so with SNAPPS. Acad Med 2012;87:1210-17. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dewey J. How We Think. Boston: Heath, 1933. [Google Scholar]
  18. Joplin L. On defining experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education 1981;4:17-20. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Schön DA. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  20. Eva KW, Regehr G. Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda. Acad Med 2005;80:S46-S54. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Giroux M, Girard G. Favoriser la position d’apprentissage grâce à l’interaction superviseur-supervisé. Pédagogie Médicale 2009;10:193-210. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  22. Bordage G. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ 2009;43:312-19. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Côté L, Bordage G. Content and conceptual frameworks of preceptor feedback related to residents’ educational needs. Acad Med 2012;87:1274-81. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Côté L, Turgeon J. Appraising qualitative research articles in medicine and medical education. Med Teach 2005;27:71-5. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pelaccia T, Paillé P. Les approches qualitatives : une invitation à l’innovation et à la découverte dans le champ de la recherche en pédagogie des sciences de la santé. Pédagogie Médicale 2010;10:293-304. [Google Scholar]
  26. Frank JR. (Réd.). Le Cadre de compétences CanMEDS 2005 pour les médecins. L’excellence des normes, des médecins et des soins. Ottawa : Le Collège royal des médecins et chirurgiens du Canada, 2005 [Online] Disponible sur : http://crmcc.medical.org/canmeds/CanMEDS2005/index.php [Google Scholar]
  27. Fonteyn ME, Kuipers B, Grobe SJ. A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qual Health Res 1993;3:430-41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lyle J. Stimulated recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research. Br Educ Res J 2003;29:861-78. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. L’Ecuyer R. L’analyse de contenu : notions et étapes. In : Deslauriers JP. Les méthodes de la recherche qualitative. Sillery : Presses Universitaires du Québec, 1988:49-65. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nendaz M, Charlin B, Leblanc V, Bordage G. Le raisonnement clinique : données issues de la recherche et implications pour l’enseignement. Pédagogie Médicale 2005;6:235-54. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kennedy TJT, Lingard LA. Questioning competence: A discourse analysis of attending physicians' use of questions to assess trainee competence. Acad Med 2007;82:S12-S15. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ménard L, Ratnapalan S. Réflexion en médecine. Modèles et application. Can Fam Physician 2013;59:e57-9. [Google Scholar]
  33. Parent F, Jouquan J, De Ketele JM. CanMEDS and other “competency and outcome-based approaches” in medical education: clarifying the ongoing ambiguity. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2013;18:115-22 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Irby DM. How attending physicians make instructional decisions when conducting teaching rounds. Acad Med 1992;67:630-38. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008;337:404-7. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.