EDP Sciences logo
Authentification abonné
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 19 / Numéro 2 (Mai 2018) Pédagogie Médicale, 19 2 (2018) 77-90 Références
Accès gratuit
Numéro
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 19, Numéro 2, Mai 2018
Page(s) 77 - 90
Section Concepts et Innovations
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2019007
Publié en ligne 17 juillet 2019
  1. Sefton AJ. Charting a global future for education in physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 2005;29:189‐93. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Domin D. A review of laboratory instruction styles. J Chem Educ 1999;76:543. [Google Scholar]
  3. Tricot A. L’innovation pédagogique. Paris : Éditions Retz, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kirschner P, Meeste M. The laboratory in higher science education: Problems, premises and objectives. High Educ 1988;17:81‐98. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bijlani RL. Assessment of Laboratory exercises in physiology. Med Educ 1981;15:216‐21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Clase KL, Hein PW, Pelaez NJ. Demand for interdisciplinary laboratories for physiology research by undergraduate students in biosciences and biomedical engineering. Adv Physiol Educ 2008;32:256‐60. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Schmidt H, Loyens S, Van Gog T, Paas F. Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educ Psychol 2007;42:91‐7. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kirschner P, Sweller J, Clark R. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol 2006;41:75‐86. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pourshanazari AA, Roohbakhsh A, Khazaei M, Tajadini H. Comparing the long-term retention of a physiology course for medical students with the traditional and problem-based learning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2013;18:91‐97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Klegeris A, Hurren H. Impact of problem-based learning in a large classroom setting: student perception and problem-solving skills. Adv Physiol Educ 2011; 35: 408‐415. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Abraham RR, Vinod P, Kamath MG, Asha K, Ramnarayan K. Learning approaches of undergraduate medical students to physiology in a non-PBL- and partially PBL-oriented curriculum. Adv Physiol Educ 2008;32:35‐37. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Jin J, Bridges SM. Educational technologies in problem-based learning in health sciences education: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e251. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Scherl A, Dethleffsen K, Meyer M. Interactive knowledge networks for interdisciplinary course navigation within Moodle. Adv Physiol Educ 2018;36: 284‐297. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tricot A, Rafenomanjato J. Le numérique modifie-t-il le métier d’élève ? Hermès 2017;78:128‐136. [Google Scholar]
  15. Al-Shorbaji N, Atun R, Car J, Majeed A, Wheeler E. eLearning for undergraduate health professional education. A systematic review informing a radical transformation of health workforce development. Genève, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  16. Singh H. Building effective blended learning programs. Educ Technol 2003;43:51‐54. [Google Scholar]
  17. Peraya Charlier B, Deschryver N. Une première approche de l’hybridation. Educ Form 2014;e-301:15‐34. [Google Scholar]
  18. Anderson LC, Krichbaum KE. Best practices for learning physiology: Combining classroom and online methods. Adv Physiol Educ 2017;41:383‐389. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Taylor D, Miflin B. Problem-based learning: Where are we now? Med Teach 2008;30:742‐63. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lebrun M. Un nouveau regard sur la typologie des dispositifs hybrides de formation. Propositions méthodologiques pour identifier et comparer ces dispositifs. Educ Form 2014;e301:55‐74. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tricot A, Plégat-Soutjis F, Camps J, Amiel A, Lutz G, Morcillo A. Utilité, utilisabilité, acceptabilité : interpréter les relations entre trois dimensions de l’évaluation des EIAH, in Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain, Desmoulins C, Marquet P, Bouhineau D, Editors. Strasbourg : Recueil des actes du congrès, 2003, p. 391‐402. [Google Scholar]
  22. Atarodi S, Berardi A, Toniolo A. Le modèle d’acceptation des technologies depuis 1986 : 30 ans de développement. Psychol Travail Organ 2018:1‐30. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mercer N, Hennessy S, Warwick P. Using Interactive Whiteboards to Orchestrate Classroom Dialogue. Technol Pedagog Educ 2010;19:195‐209. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Di Marco L, Venot A, Gillois P. Does the acceptance of hybrid learning affect learning approaches in France. J Educ Eval Health Prof 2017;14:24. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Smarkola C. Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers. J Educ Comput Res 2007;37:65‐82. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Tudor Car L, Kyaw BM, Dunleavy G, Smart NA, Semwal M, Rotgans JI et al. Digital problem-based learning in health professions: Systematic review and meta-analysis by the digital health education collaboration. J Med Internet Res 2019;21:e12945. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Bernard R, Borokhovski E, Schmid R, Tamim R, Abrami P. A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. J Comput High Educ 2014;26:87‐122. [Google Scholar]
  28. Chanquoy L, Tricot A, Sweller J. La charge cognitive. Théorie et applications. Paris : Armand Colin, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  29. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014;111:8410‐5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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.