References
- 1Kassab SE, El-Sayed W, Hamdy H. Student engagement in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2022; 56: 703–15. DOI: 10.1111/medu.14799
- 2Xu X, Bos NA, Wu H. The relationship between medical student engagement in the provision of the school’s education programme and learning outcomes. Med Teach. 2022; 44: 900–6. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2022.2047168
- 3Wong ZY, Liem GAD. Student engagement: current state of the construct, conceptual refinement, and future research directions. Educ Psychol Rev. 2022; 34: 107–38. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-021-09628-3
- 4Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004; 74: 59–109. DOI: 10.3102/00346543074001059
- 5Chi MTH, Wylie R. The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educ Psychol. 2014; 49: 219–43. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
- 6Onyura B, Baker L, Cameron B, Friesen F, Leslie K. Evidence for curricular and instructional design approaches in undergraduate medical education: an umbrella review. Med Teach. 2016; 38: 150–61. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1009019
- 7Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ. 2004; 93: 223–31. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
- 8Rocca KA. Student participation in the college classroom: an extended multidisciplinary literature review. Commun Educ. 2010; 59: 185–213. DOI: 10.1080/03634520903505936
- 9Schneider M, Preckel F. Variables associated with achievement in higher education: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychol Bull. 2017; 143: 565–600. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000098
- 10Kilgour JM, Grundy L, Monrouxe LV. A rapid review of the factors affecting healthcare students’ satisfaction with small-group, active learning methods. Teach Learn Med. 2016; 28: 15–25. DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2015.1107484
- 11Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C, Matthews P, et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME guide no. 23. Med Teach. 2012; 34: e421–44. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.680939
- 12Walling A, Istas K, Bonaminio GA, Paolo AM, Fontes JD, Davis N, et al. Medical student perspectives of active learning: a focus group study. Teach Learn Med. 2017; 29: 173–80. DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2016.1247708
- 13White C, Bradley E, Martindale J, Roy P, Patel K, Yoon M, et al. Why are medical students ‘checking out’ of active learning in a new curriculum? Med Educ. 2014; 48: 315–24. DOI: 10.1111/medu.12356
- 14Michael J. Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. Coll Teach. 2007; 55: 42–7. DOI: 10.3200/ctch.55.2.42-47
- 15Bucklin BA, Asdigian NL, Hawkins JL, Klein U. Making it stick: use of active learning strategies in continuing medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2021; 21: 44. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-02447-0
- 16Henderson C, Dancy M, Niewiadomska-Bugaj M. Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Phys Rev Spec Top – Phys Educ Res. 2012; 8: 020104. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020104
- 17Owens DC, Sadler TD, Barlow AT, Smith-Walters C. Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Res Sci Educ. 2020; 50: 253–77. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-017-9688-1
- 18Jacobs JCG, Wilschut J, van der Vleuten C, Scheele F, Croiset G, Kusurkar RA. An international study on teachers’ conceptions of learning and teaching and corresponding teacher profiles. Med Teach. 2020; 42: 1000–4. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1772465
- 19Trigwell K, Prosser M. Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. High Educ. 1996; 32: 77–87. DOI: 10.1007/BF00139219
- 20Calkins S, Johnson N, Light G. Changing conceptions of teaching in medical faculty. Med Teach. 2012; 34: 902–6. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.720050
- 21Inra JA, Pelletier S, Kumar NL, Barnes EL, Shields HM. An active learning curriculum improves fellows’ knowledge and faculty teaching skills. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017; 8: 359–64. DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S135538
- 22Deslauriers L, McCarty LS, Miller K, Callaghan K, Kestin G. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019; 116: 19251–7. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1821936116
- 23Onyura B, Légaré F, Baker L, Reeves S, Rosenfield J, Kitto S, et al. Affordances of knowledge translation in medical education: a qualitative exploration of empirical knowledge use among medical educators. Acad Med. 2015; 90: 518–24. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000590
- 24Sorinola OO, Thistlethwaite J. A systematic review of faculty development activities in family medicine. Med Teach. 2013; 35: e1309–18. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.770132
- 25Steinert Y, Mann K, Anderson B, Barnett BM, Centeno A, Naismith L, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: a 10-year update: BEME guide no. 40. Med Teach. 2016; 38: 769–86. DOI: 10.1080/0142159x.2016.1181851
- 26Graffam B. Active learning in medical education: strategies for beginning implementation. Med Teach. 2007; 29: 38–42. DOI: 10.1080/01421590601176398
- 27Desselle BC, English R, Hescock G, Hauser A, Roy M, Yang T, et al. Evaluation of a faculty development program aimed at increasing residents’ active learning in lectures. J Grad Med Educ. 2012; 4: 516–20. DOI: 10.4300/JGME-D-11-00209.1
- 28White PJ, Larson I, Styles K, Yuriev E, Evans DR, Rangachari PK, et al. Adopting an active learning approach to teaching in a research-intensive higher education context transformed staff teaching attitudes and behaviours. High Educ Res Dev. 2016; 35: 619–33. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2015.1107887
- 29Charmaz K.
Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis . London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications; 2006. - 30Charmaz K, Thornberg R. The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qual Res Psychol. 2021; 18: 305–27. DOI: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357
- 31Chun Tie Y, Birks M, Francis K. Grounded theory research: a design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Med. 2019; 7: 1–8. DOI: 10.1177/2050312118822927
- 32Maxwell JA. Why qualitative methods are necessary for generalization. Qual Psychol. 2021; 8: 111–8. DOI: 10.1037/qup0000173
- 33Clarke A, Healy K, Lynch D, Featherstone G. The use of a constructivist grounded theory method – a good fit for social work research. Int J Qual Methods. 2023; 22: 1–10. DOI: 10.1177/16094069231186257
- 34Berthelsen CB, Grimshaw-Aagaard S, Hansen C. Developing a guideline for reporting and evaluating grounded theory research studies (GUREGT). Int J Health Sci. 2018; 6: 64–76.
- 35Kumar B, Suneja M, Swee M. When I say… appreciative inquiry. Med Educ. 2023; 57: 1006–7. DOI: 10.1111/medu.15140
- 36Sandars J, Murdoch-Eaton D. Appreciative inquiry in medical education. Med Teach. 2017; 39: 123–7. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1245852
- 37Michael S. The promise of appreciative inquiry as an interview tool for field research. Dev Pract. 2005; 15: 222–30. DOI: 10.1080/09614520500042094
- 38Reed J.
Appreciative inquiry . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 2007. DOI: 10.4135/9781412983464 - 39ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH 2022.
- 40Birks M, Mills J, Francis K, Chapman Y. A thousand words paint a picture: the use of storyline in grounded theory research. J Res Nurs. 2009; 14: 405–17. DOI: 10.1177/1744987109104675
- 41Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018; 52: 1893–907. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
- 42Aldiabat K, Le Navenec C-L. Data saturation: the mysterious step in grounded theory method. Qual Rep. 2018; 23: 245–61. DOI: 10.46743/2160-3715/2018.2994