YOUTUBE
Due to fast and unpredictable developments, professional education is challenged with being responsive, which demands a rethinking of conventional curriculum development approaches. Yet, literature on curriculum development falls short in terms of recognising how to react rapidly and adequately to these new developments. This study focuses on curriculum development initiatives at the school level in a Dutch university of applied sciences. Open interviews were held with 29 curriculum developers to explore how they define and give substance to developing curricula for new, changing or unpredictable professions. These 29 participants were involved in seven curriculum development trajectories. Four themes were detected: (1) curriculum developers are in favour of open, flexible and authentic curricula; (2) the context in which the curriculum development takes place and the different roles and responsibilities of curriculum developers are challenging; (3) curriculum developers feel insufficiently equipped to carry out their tasks; and (4) involving stakeholders is necessary but results in a “viscous” social–political process. Responsive curriculum development requires a great deal of flexibility and adaptability from curriculum developers. Yet, in our study, “institutional concrete” is found to severely hinder responsive curriculum development processes. To be responsive, such processes need to be supported and institutional barriers need to be removed.
DOCUMENT
Background: Shared decision-making is one key element of interprofessional collaboration. Communication is often considered to be the main reason for inefficient or ineffective collaboration. Little is known about group dynamics in the process of shared decision-making in a team with professionals, including the patient or their parent. This study aimed to evaluate just that. Methods: Simulation-based training was provided for groups of medical and allied health profession students from universities across the globe. In an overt ethnographic research design, passive observations were made to ensure careful observations and accurate reporting. The training offered the context to directly experience the behaviors and interactions of a group of people. Results: Overall, 39 different goals were defined in different orders of prioritizing and with different time frames or intervention ideas. Shared decision-making was lacking, and groups chose to convince the parents when a conflict arose. Group dynamics made parents verbally agree with professionals, although their non-verbal communication was not in congruence with that. Conclusions: The outcome and goalsetting of an interprofessional meeting are highly influenced by group dynamics. The vision, structure, process, and results of the meeting are affected by multiple inter- or intrapersonal factors.
DOCUMENT
