The concepts of metacognitive refection, refection, and metacognition are distinct but have undergone shifts in meaning as they migrated into medical education. Conceptual clarity is essential to the construction of the knowledge base of medical education and its educational interventions. We conducted a theoretical integrative review across diverse bodies of literature with the goal of understanding what metacognitive refection is. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Web of Science databases, including all peer-reviewed research articles and theoretical papers as well as book chapters that addressed the topic, with no limitations for date, language, or location. A total of 733 articles were identified and 87 were chosen after careful review and application of exclusion criteria. The work of conceptually and empirically delineating metacognitive reflection has begun. Contributions have been made to root metacognitive refection in the concept of metacognition and moving beyond it to engage in cycles of refection. Other work has underscored its affective component, transformational nature, and contextual factors. Despite this merging of threads to develop a richer conceptualization, a theory of how metacognitive refection works is elusive. Debates address whether metacognition drives refection or vice versa. It has also been suggested that learners evolve along on a continuum from thinking, to task-related refection, to self-refection, and finally to metacognitive refection. Based on prior theory and research, as well as the findings of this review, we propose the following conceptualization: Metacognitive refection involves heightened internal observation, awareness, monitoring, and regulation of our own knowledge, experiences, and emotions by questioning and examining cognition and emotional processes to continually refine and enhance our perspectives and decisions while thoughtfully accounting for context. We argue that metacognitive refection brings a shift in perspective and can support valuable reconceptualization for lifelong learning.
LINK
When physicians and nurses are looking at the same patient, they may not see the same picture. If assuming that the clinical reasoning of both professions is alike and ignoring possible differences, aspects essential for care can be overlooked. Understanding the multifaceted concept of clinical reasoning of both professions may provide insight into the nature and purpose of their practices and benefit patient care, education and research. We aimed to identify, compare and contrast the documented features of clinical reasoning of physicians and nurses through the lens of layered analysis and to conduct a simultaneous concept analysis. The protocol of this systematic integrative review was published doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049862. A comprehensive search was performed in four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and Web of Science) from 30th March 2020 to 27th May 2020. A total of 69 Empirical and theoretical journal articles about clinical reasoning of practitioners were included: 27 nursing, 37 medical, and five combining both perspectives. Two reviewers screened the identified papers for eligibility and assessed the quality of the methodologically diverse articles. We used an onion model, based on three layers: Philosophy, Principles, and Techniques to extract and organize the data. Commonalities and differences were identified on professional paradigms, theories, intentions, content, antecedents, attributes, outcomes, and contextual factors. The detected philosophical differences were located on a care-cure and subjective-objective continuum. We observed four principle contrasts: a broad or narrow focus, consideration of the patient as such or of the patient and his relatives, hypotheses to explain or to understand, and argumentation based on causality or association. In the technical layer a difference in the professional concepts of diagnosis and the degree of patient involvement in the reasoning process were perceived. Clinical reasoning can be analysed by breaking it down into layers, and the onion model resulted in detailed features. Subsequently insight was obtained in the differences between nursing and medical reasoning. The origin of these differences is in the philosophical layer (professional paradigms, intentions). This review can be used as a first step toward gaining a better understanding and collaboration in patient care, education and research across the nursing and medical professions.
MULTIFILE
Learning environment designs at the boundary of school and work can be characterised as integrative because they integrate features from the contexts of school and work. Many different manifestations of such integrative learning environments are found in current vocational education, both in senior secondary education and higher professional education. However, limited research has focused on how to design these learning environments and not much is known about their designable elements (i.e. the epistemic, spatial, instrumental, temporal and social elements that constitute the learning environments). The purpose of this study was to examine manifestations of two categories of integrative learning environment designs: designs based on incorporation; and designs based on hybridisation. Cross-case analysis of six cases in senior secondary vocational education and higher professional education in the Netherlands led to insights into the designable elements of both categories of designs. We report findings about the epistemic, spatial, instrumental, temporal and social elements of the studied cases. Specific characteristics of designs based on incorporation and designs based on hybridisation were identified and links between the designable elements became apparent, thus contributing to a deeper understanding of the design of learning environments that aim to connect the contexts of school and work.
LINK
