음악 수업 : 음대와 의대의 학습문화 비교

음악 수업 : 음대와 의대의 학습문화 비교

Music lessons: revealing medicine’s learning culture through a comparison with that of music

Christopher Watling,1 Erik Driessen,2 Cees P M van der Vleuten,2 Meredith Vanstone3 & Lorelei Lingard4

배경

의학분야에서 학습에 대한 연구는 주로 개개인의 학습자에 초점이 맞춰져 있지만, 학습의 과정이 어떠한지에 대한 이해에도 관심을 갖고, 학습이 실제로 일어나는 장소의 문화적 맥락의 영향도 바라볼 필요가 있다. 이 연구에서 우리는 두 개의 학습문화 - 음대와 의대 - 를 비교하여 의대 문화에서는 당연하게 여겨지는 가정들을 파헤쳐보고자 하였다.

방법

우리는 constructivist grounded theory 접근법을 활용하여 두 문화간 학습의 경험이 어떻게 다른지를 보고자 하였다. 우리는 아홉 개의 focus group(두 명의 의대생, 세 명의 레지던트, 네 명의 음대생)과 네 명의 개별 인터뷰(임상-교육자 1명, 음악 교육자 1명, 의사-음악가 2명)를 수행하였다(총 37명). 정보를 모으는 동시에 분석이 진행되었고, 지속적 비교(constant comparison)을 통해서 주제들을 지속적으로 반복 확인하였다.

결과

학습이 일어나는 장소가 어디인지, 어떤 학습 성과가 요구되는지, 학습이 어떻게 촉진되는지에 따른 문화적 관점의 차이가 드러났다. 대부분의 의대에서 학습은 learning by doing으로 일어나는 반면, 음대에서는 learning by lesson을 높게 평가했다. 의대에서는 competence가 그 목적인데 비해서, 음대에서는 연주실력(performance)이 끊임없이 향상되는(ever-better)것을 중요시했다. 의대에서는 선생님들의 임상술기를 교수능력보다 더 가치있게 평가하는데 반해, 음대에서는 가르치는 능력을 더 중시했다. 자기평가는 두 문화 모두에서 학습자의 도전의식을 자극했으나 의대생들은 자기평가를 '발전시킬 수 있는 기술'로서 생각한 반면, 음대생들은 '외부적 피드백이 항상 필요하다'라고 생각했다.

결론

이번 비교 분석을 통해 의대와 음대는 교수-학습에 대해서 서로 다른 문화적 가정을 가진다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 두 문화의 차이로부터 의대 문화의 취약점(competence-focused approach, 선생님(teachers)에게 가하는 제약)을 알 수 있었다. 이러한 취약점을 드러냄으로서 우리는 의대 교육을 새롭게 상상하고 바꾸어나갈 자극을 제공하고자 하였다.

(출처 : http://blogs.cornell.edu/city/2011/02/17/on-music-and-medicine/)

---

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (1) April 2006

 Printable PDF Version

The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory

Jane Mills, Ann Bonner, and Karen Francis

 

Jane Mills, RN, MN, BN, Grad Cert Edu, MRCNA, Doctoral Candidate, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Gippsland Campus, Monash University

Ann Bonner, RN, PhD, MA , BAppSc, MRCNA, Senior Lecturer, School of Nursing Sciences and Midwifery, Cairns Campus, James Cook University

Karen Francis, RN, PhD, MHlth Sc (Nsg), MEd, Grad Cert Uni Teach/Learn, BHlth Sc (Nsg), Dip Hlth Sc (Nsg), Professor of Rural Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Gippsland Campus, Monash University

Abstract: Constructivist grounded theory is a popular method for research studies primarily in the disciplines of psychology, education, and nursing. In this article, the authors aim to locate the roots of constructivist grounded theory and then trace its development. They examine key grounded theory texts to discern their ontological and epistemological orientation. They find Strauss and Corbin’s texts on grounded theory to possess a discernable thread of constructivism in their approach to inquiry. They also discuss Charmaz’s landmark work on constructivist grounded theory relative to her positioning of the researcher in relation to the participants, analysis of the data, and rendering of participants’ experiences into grounded theory. Grounded theory can be seen as a methodological spiral that begins with Glaser and Strauss’ original text and continues today. The variety of epistemological positions that grounded theorists adopt are located at various points on this spiral and are reflective of their underlying ontologies.

Keywords: grounded theory, constructivism, constructivist, methodology, nurse/nursing

 

Authors’ note 
Jane Mills acknowledges the financial support of the Queensland Nursing Council.

Citation 

Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), Article 3. Retrieved [date] from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/html/mills.htm

---

Med Educ. 2013 Aug;47(8):842-50. doi: 10.1111/medu.12235.

Music lessons: revealing medicine's learning culture through a comparison with that of music.

Watling C, Driessen E, van der Vleuten CP, Vanstone M, Lingard L.

Source

Department of Clinic Neurological Sciences, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

CONTEXT:

Research on medical learning has tended to focus on the individual learner, but a sufficient understanding of the learning process requires that attention also be paid to the essential influence of the cultural context within which learning takes place. In this study, we undertook a comparative examination of two learning cultures - those of music and medicine - in order to unearth assumptions about learning that are taken for granted within the medical culture.

METHODS:

We used a constructivist grounded theory approach to explore experiences of learning within the two cultures. We conducted nine focus groups (two with medical students, three with residents, four with music students) and four individual interviews (with one clinician-educator, onemusic educator and two doctor-musicians), for a total of 37 participants. Analysis occurred alongside and informed data collection. Themes were identified iteratively using constant comparisons.

RESULTS:

Cultural perspectives diverged in terms of where learning should occur, what learning outcomes are desired, and how learning is best facilitated. Whereas medicine valued learning by doing, music valued learning by lesson. Whereas medical learners aimed for competence, musicstudents aimed instead for ever-better performance. Whereas medical learners valued their teachers for their clinical skills more than for their teaching abilities, the opposite was true in music, in which teachers' instructional skills were paramount. Self-assessment challenged learners in both cultures, but medical learners viewed self-assessment as a skill they could develop, whereas music students recognised that external feedback would always be required.

CONCLUSIONS:

This comparative analysis reveals that medicine and music make culturally distinct assumptions about teaching and learning. The contrasts between the two cultures illuminate potential vulnerabilities in the medical learning culture, including the risks inherent in its competence-focused approach and the constraints it places on its own teachers. By highlighting these vulnerabilities, we provide a stimulus for reimagining and renewing medicine's educational practices.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PMID:

 

23837431

 

[PubMed - in process]