Introduction Recent conceptualizations of self-regulated learning acknowledge the importance of co-regulation, i.e., students’ interactions with others in their networks to support self-regulation. Using a social network approach, the aim of this study is to explore relationships between characteristics of medical students’ co-regulatory networks, perceived learning opportunities, and self-regulated learning. Methods The authors surveyed 403 undergraduate medical students during their clinical clerkships (response rate 65.5%). Using multiple regression analysis, structural equation modelling techniques, and analysis of variance, the authors explored relationships between co-regulatory network characteristics (network size, network diversity, and interaction frequency), students’ perceptions of learning opportunities in the workplace setting, and self-reported self-regulated learning. Results Across all clerkships, data showed positive relationships between tie strength and self-regulated learning (β = 0.095, p < 0.05) and between network size and tie strength (β = 0.530, p < 0.001), and a negative relationship between network diversity and tie strength (β = −0.474, p < 0.001). Students’ perceptions of learning opportunities showed positive relationships with both self-regulated learning (β = 0.295, p < 0.001) and co-regulatory network size (β = 0.134, p < 0.01). Characteristics of clerkship contexts influenced both co-regulatory network characteristics (size and tie strength) and relationships between network characteristics, self-regulated learning, and students’ perceptions of learning opportunities. Discussion The present study reinforces the importance of co-regulatory networks for medical students’ self-regulated learning during clinical clerkships. Findings imply that supporting development of strong networks aimed at frequent co-regulatory interactions may enhance medical students’ self-regulated learning in challenging clinical learning environments. Social network approaches offer promising ways of further understanding and conceptualising self- and co-regulated learning in clinical workplaces.

No abstract

for taking the time to read and comment on the report of the pilot systematic review and metaanalysis we completed. 3 Such responses are an indication that the report has been successful in at least 2 of its goals: it has stimulated further debate about the effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) and how it should be evaluated, and it has encouraged the improvement of studies aimed at answering this question. We would find it difficult to disagree with many of the points made by the authors of these commentaries, given that we made many of them ourselves in the report. We would like to encourage readers to view the report for themselves on the LTSN-01 (Learning and Teaching Subject Network for Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine) website at http://www. ltsn-01.ac.uk/resources/features/pbl.The report has been successful in a least 2 of its goals: it has stimulated further debate about the effectiveness of problem-based learning and how it should be evaluated, and has encouraged the improvement of studies aimed at answering this question It is perhaps useful to state the review group's primary objective for this pilot study. This is: ÔTo establish the evidence provided by existing published reviews about the effectiveness of PBL…when compared to other non-PBL teaching and learning strategies.Õ The above respondents suggest that such a question is invalid. We must disagree. As teachers and curriculum developers using approaches that have been labelled PBL, we are concerned with this question, as are our colleagues and our students. We want to know what actions, values, behaviours, roles and environments we should adopt in order to maximise the success of our students. In our view, it is disingenuous of those who carry out research in this field or advocate the adoption of PBL curricula to pretend that the question of the relative benefits of different approaches is not a valid concern. In fact, the authors have made such arguments themselves. Dolmans and Schmidt, for example, argue that PBL helps students develop richer mental models. 4 The claim itself is indicative of a comparison: ÔricherÕ than what or when? The report thus had a particular goal in mind and chose a methodology appropriate to answering that question. This in no way implies a rejection of other methods, nor does it imply a rejection of student-centred or Ôcon-structivistÕ approaches to teaching or research. The ÔconstructivismÕ referred by Diana Dolmans should best be viewed as an umbrella term covering a range of theoretical approaches and as such does not predict any particular method of teaching and ⁄ or research method as most appropriate. 5We want to know what actions, values, behaviours, roles and environments we should adopt to maximise the success of our studentsThe focus on experimental and quasi-experimental research designs in our review does not imply that other research approaches are less valuable or important. Qualitative studies are required to help us understand the teaching and learning that occur in the different a...

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

No abstract

No abstract

This book sprang from the thought that ideas are resourced by a confrontation of minds. I would like to thank all those that contributed their mind, confronted me with ideas and promoted learning teams through which immature insights could develop. Thank you. Wim Gijselaers, for fostering potency in the light of great ideas. Mien Segers, for an apprentice-master relationship that delivers an optimal (learning) environment. Paul Kirschner and Els Boshuizen, for creating opportunities. PJ Beers, for joining me in this adventure. Sanne Akkerman and her partners in crime, Robert-Jan Simons and Wilfried Admiraal, for looking for a shared mind. Geert Woltjer and Nanine van Gennip, for contributing valuable knowledge and even more important: catching enthusiasm. Henny Dankers and the student-assistants for the bits and pieces. David, Emily, Filip, Gerard, Siesel, my colleagues at the department of educational research and development, my Ridley, and not to forget my parents and family. For creating the right atmosphere that nurtured this dissertation and the researcher behind it.This book provides evidence for the idea that great teams spring from diversity combined with a fundamental common ground. Els, this is just some other proof of what we knew all along. Thanks for teaming up!