Why are junior doctors reluctant to consult attending physicians?

Swank, Otto H.

doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.12.002

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(4) Receiving feedback is indispensable if learning is to occur (Hattie and Timperley 2007). Asking for feedback (Ashford, Blatt, and VandeWalle 2003;Swank 2010;Sweeny et al 2010) is considered a regulative learning activity that is very important for learning. (5) Experimentation is treated by Van Woerkom (2003) as a broad concept; trying out new ideas with reflection in action (Schö n 1983) to explore alternatives (Brookfield 2009).…”

Section: Critically Reflective Work Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critically reflective dialogues in learning communities of professionals

Groot

Endedijk

Jaarsma

et al. 2013

Studies in Continuing Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communities in which professionals share and create knowledge potentially support their continued learning. To realise this potential more fully, members are required to reflect critically. For learning at work such behaviour has been described as critically reflective work behaviour, consisting of six aspects: challenging groupthink, critical opinion sharing, an openness about mistakes, asking for and giving feedback, experimentation and research utilisation. We studied whether and how these aspects can be distinguished in dialogues of seven different communities of veterinary professionals (critically reflective dialogues). Our exploration of the nature of critically reflective dialogues resulted in an analytical framework. Within each aspect four different modes of communication were identified: interactive, on an individual basis, non-reflective and restricted. We assume that professionals use learning opportunities most in the interactive mode of communication. The framework was employed to study the extent to which dialogues showed these modes of critically reflective dialogues. The results demonstrate that in these communities the modes of communication within aspects were largely non-interactive (i.e., individual, non-reflective). The developed framework discriminates between communities in terms of their critically reflective dialogues. Interventions to improve the effectiveness of learning communities should focus on enhancement of members addressing each other's reasons and reflections.

show abstract