Accès gratuit
Numéro
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 14, Numéro 3, août 2013
Page(s) 169 - 186
Section Recherche et perspectives
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2013048
Publié en ligne 10 septembre 2013
  1. Kilminster SM, Jolly BC. Effective supervision in clinical settings: a literature review. Med Educ 2000;34:827-40. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  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]
  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. [CrossRef]
  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]
  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]
  6. Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder W. Cultivating communities of practice. A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.
  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]
  8. Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich PJ, Hoffman RR (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  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]
  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]
  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]
  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.
  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]
  14. Archer JC. State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med Educ 2010;44:101-08. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  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]
  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]
  17. Dewey J. How We Think. Boston: Heath, 1933.
  18. Joplin L. On defining experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education 1981;4:17-20. [CrossRef]
  19. Schön DA. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, 1983.
  20. Eva KW, Regehr G. Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda. Acad Med 2005;80:S46-S54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  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]
  22. Bordage G. Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Med Educ 2009;43:312-19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  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]
  24. Côté L, Turgeon J. Appraising qualitative research articles in medicine and medical education. Med Teach 2005;27:71-5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  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. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
  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
  27. Fonteyn ME, Kuipers B, Grobe SJ. A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qual Health Res 1993;3:430-41. [CrossRef]
  28. Lyle J. Stimulated recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research. Br Educ Res J 2003;29:861-78. [CrossRef]
  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.
  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]
  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]
  32. Ménard L, Ratnapalan S. Réflexion en médecine. Modèles et application. Can Fam Physician 2013;59:e57-9.
  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]
  34. Irby DM. How attending physicians make instructional decisions when conducting teaching rounds. Acad Med 1992;67:630-38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008;337:404-7.

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.