↓ Skip to main content

How clinical reasoning is taught and learned: Cultural perspectives from the University of Melbourne and Universitas Indonesia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How clinical reasoning is taught and learned: Cultural perspectives from the University of Melbourne and Universitas Indonesia
Published in
BMC Medical Education, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0709-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ardi Findyartini, Lesleyanne Hawthorne, Geoff McColl, Neville Chiavaroli

Abstract

The majority of schools in the Asia-Pacific region have adopted medical curricula based on western pedagogy. However to date there has been minimal exploration of the influence of the culture of learning on the teaching and learning process. This paper explores this issue in relation to clinical reasoning. A comparative case study was conducted in 2 medical schools in Australia (University of Melbourne) and Asia (Universitas Indonesia). It involved assessment of medical students' attitudes to clinical reasoning through administration of the Diagnostic Thinking Inventory (DTI), followed by qualitative interviews which explored related cultural issues. A total of 11 student focus group discussions (45 students) and 24 individual medical teacher interviews were conducted, followed by thematic analysis. Students from Universitas Indonesia were found to score lower on the Flexibility in Thinking subscale of the DTI. Qualitative data analysis based on Hofstede's theoretical constructs concerning the culture of learning also highlighted clear differences in relation to attitudes to authority and uncertainty avoidance, with potential impacts on attitudes to teaching and learning of clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical education. Different attitudes to teaching and learning clinical reasoning reflecting western and Asian cultures of learning were identified in this study. The potential impact of cultural differences should be understood when planning how clinical reasoning can be best taught and learned in the changing global contexts of medical education, especially when the western medical education approach is implemented in Asian contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 161 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 8 5%
Other 43 27%
Unknown 38 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 46%
Social Sciences 16 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Psychology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 39 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,380,359
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,268
of 3,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,862
of 364,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#50
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.