Identificación y análisis de la percepción de los conceptos umbrales en ingenieria tisular en estudiantes del grado de medicina

  1. Saavedra-Casado, Salvador
  2. Campos, Fernando
  3. Santisteban-Espejo, Antonio
  4. Martín-Piedra, Miguel Ángel
  5. Durand-Herrera, Daniel
  6. Campos-Sánchez, Antonio
Journal:
Actualidad médica

ISSN: 0365-7965

Year of publication: 2017

Tome: 102

Issue: 800

Pages: 29-33

Type: Article

DOI: 10.15568/AM.2017.800.OR05 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Actualidad médica

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this work is to study the threshold concepts’ perceptions in tissue engineering medical students in order to a better planning of their training and a better self-regulated learning. Methods: A twenty item-questionnaire, regarding three grouped sections of threshold concepts in tissue engineering, was carried out by 63 undergraduate medical students (37 women and 26 men) from the University of Granada. The different items in each section were evaluated by students using a five-level Likert scale ranging from level 1 “strongly disagree” to level 5 “strongly agree”, depending on the consideration that each Student had on the item as a threshold concept in the field of Tissue Engineering. Subsequently, a statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test comparing the values by gender (woman or men) and the differences between the different sections. Results: The most valued concepts were those of section 1 corresponding to “basic concepts in tissue engineering” with an average of 4.19 out of 5, followed by the concepts of section 2 “control of cellular quality” and 3 “biofabrication and translation to the clinic “with averages of 3.90 and 3.53 respectively. There are statistical significant differences (p<0,01) among the three sections. The most valued concept was item # 4 “ stem cells” with an average of 4.63 and the smallest item was item 9 “ bioprinters” with an average of 3.13. Only a statistically significant difference was observed between the assessment of men versus women in item # 13 “biomechanics.” Conclusions: The differences observed in this study regarding threshold concepts should be taken into account when organizing the program and training of Tissue Engineering subject in the medical curriculum.

Bibliographic References

  • Bianco P, Robey PG. Stem cells in tissue engineering. Nature. 2001;414(6859):118-21. DOI: 10.1038/35102181
  • Campos A. Las cuatro ruedas del carro de la excelencia. Desafíos y limitaciones en la educación médica. Educación Médica. 2016;17(3):88-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.edumed.2016.06.001
  • Campos A. Objetivos conceptuales y metodológicos de la investigación histológica. Educación Médica. 2004;7:36-40.
  • Carmichael P. Threshold concepts, disciplinary differences and cross-disciplinary discourse. Learning and teaching in higher education: Gulf perspectives. 2010;7(2):53-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.18538/lthe.v7.n2.43
  • Carnevale R. La impresora de órganos. Ficciones y realidades de la producción de tejidos artificiales. Química Viva. 2010;9(2):76-85
  • Cope C, Staehr L. Improving student learning about a threshold concept in the IS discipline. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline. 2008;11:349-64
  • Cousin G. An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet. 2006;17(1):4-5. DOI: 10.11120/plan.2006.00170004
  • Forriol F, Esparza R. Tissue engineering: Applications of pluripotent stem cells in traumatology and orthopedic surgery. Trauma. 2008;19(2):88-101.
  • Fouberg EH. “The world is no longer flat to me”: student perceptions of threshold concepts in world regional geography. J Geogr High Educ. 2013;37(1):65- 75. DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2012.654467
  • Garcia Villegas C, Vidarte Pastrana M. Informe 1. Estado del arte de la bioimpresión 3D. Universidad El Bosque-Fundación M3D. 2011:1-14.
  • Gomez de Ferraris ME, Campos A. Histología y embriología Bucodental: Ed. Panamericana; 1999.
  • González MC, Figueroa JT. Autoconcepto y rendimiento escolar: sus implicaciones en la motivación y en la autorregulación del aprendizaje: EUNSA; 1992.
  • Kiley M. Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2009;46(3):293- 304. DOI: 10.1080/14703290903069001
  • Land R, Meyer J, Smith J. Threshold Concepts Within the Disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers; 2008.
  • Lonka K, Joram E, Bryson M. Conceptions of learning and knowledge: Does training make a difference? Contemp Educ Psychol. 1996;21(3):240-60. DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1996.0021
  • Martin E, Hernandez J. Pedagogía audiovisual: monográfico de experiencias docentes multimedia. Madrid: Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos; 2014.
  • Meyer J, Land R. Overcoming barriers to student understanding : threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. London ; New York: Routledge; 2006. xxiii, 213 pages p.
  • Meyer J, Land R. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkage to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Edimburgh: University of Edimburgh; 2003.
  • Montalvo FT, Torres MG. Self-regulated learning: current and future directions. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology. 2004;2(1):1-34.
  • Nuñez JC, Solano P, Gonzalez-Pienda JA, Rosario P. El aprendizaje autorregulado como medio y meta de la educación. Papeles del Psicólogo. 2006;27(3):139-46.
  • Purdie N, Hattie J. Assessing students’ conceptions of learning. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology. 2002;2:17-32.
  • Rodger S, Turpin M, O’Brien M. Experiences of academic staff in using threshold concepts within a reformed curriculum. Stud High Educ. 2015;40(4):545- 60. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2013.830832
  • Sánchez-Quevedo MdC, Cubero MA, Alaminos M, Vicente Crespo P, Campos A. El mapa conceptual. Un instrumento educativo polivalente para las ciencias de la salud: Su aplicación en histología. Educación Médica. 2006;9:51-8.
Data source: Dialnet