Open Access
Theories and Models in Health Sciences Education – a Literature Review
Author(s) -
Miriam Lacasse,
Frédéric Douville,
Johanne Gag,
Caroline Simard,
Luc Côté
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the canadian journal for the scholarship of teaching and learning
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1918-2902
DOI - 10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.3.9477
Subject(s) - cinahl , conceptual framework , perspective (graphical) , scholarship , health science , curriculum , sociology , psychology , medline , medical education , pedagogy , social science , computer science , medicine , political science , artificial intelligence , law
Working within a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) perspective requires a rigorous approach based on conceptual frameworks in order to build on previous developments. Nevertheless, in health sciences education, the development, implementation, and evaluation of many educational innovations are carried out without an underlying conceptual framework, partly due to a lack of knowledge about any such applicable framework. The objective of this research was to catalogue conceptual frameworks mentioned in recently published health sciences education articles and to classify them according to their use in various SoTL contexts. A literature review in health sciences education from the January, 2011 to March, 2016 period was carried out using the Pubmed, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, and PsychINFO databases and based on the following terms: (a) theories and models; (b) education; and (c) health professionals. The titles and abstracts of articles were reviewed for purposes of including research articles, innovation reports, and synthesis articles using or discussing theories or models. Data extraction followed the SoTL classification contexts provided by Simpson et al. (2007). A total of 471 articles were selected, retrieving 324 conceptual theories and models, classified according to Simpson’s classification in one or more categories: Teaching (n=294), Curriculum development (n=182), Mentoring (n=12), Leadership/administration (n=16), and Learner assessment (n=78). In conclusion, this literature review identified conceptual theories and models mentioned in articles published in health sciences education from 2011 to 2016. This repertory highlights the importance of conceptual frameworks in health science education. It should encourage faculty members to work from a SoTL perspective by making it easier to identify conceptual frameworks pertaining to the educational innovations they are addressing.