EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Rechercher
Menu
Accueil Tous les numéros Volume 19 / Numéro 2 (Mai 2018) Pédagogie Médicale, 19 2 (2018) 77-90 References
Free Access
Issue
Pédagogie Médicale
Volume 19, Number 2, Mai 2018
Page(s) 77 - 90
Section Concepts et Innovations
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2019007
Published online 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]

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.