See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335541774

Comparison of research instructional methodologies among allied health

programs

Article · September 2019

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3382484

CITATIONS READS

0 12

1 author:

Ryan Ray Gatchalian Gatbonton

Adamson University
10 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ryan Ray Gatchalian Gatbonton on 02 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1

Comparison of Research Instructional

Methodologies among Allied Health Programs
Ryan Ray G. Gatbonton
Professor, Adamson University, Philippines

INFO ABSTRACT
Corresponding Author:
E-mail Id: ryan.gatbonton@gmail.com
Practice innovations and healthcare delivery
improvements will flourish when learners of allied health
programs are mentored through meaningful teaching
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3382484
strategies. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of
research instructional methodology among allied health
Cite as:
programs. Anchored on pragmatic and comparative
Ryan Ray G. Gatbonton. (2019).
education, the official grade records of 69 undergraduate
Comparison of Research Instructional
students of nursing, medical technology, and radiologic
Methodologies among Allied Health
technology, who were taught under standardized
Programs. Journal of Nursing
conditions in a health professions institute in Manila,
Research, Education and Management
Philippines were reviewed. The findings of the study
( E-issn: 2582-001X), 2(1), 1–11.
revealed that the nursing students exemplified good
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3382484
grasp of research knowledge ( ̅ 1 = 82.86) compared to
their medical technology ( ̅ 2 = 78.70) and radiologic
technology counterparts ( ̅ 3 = 77.00). Proposal
preparation was observed to be good among nursing
students ( ̅ 1 = 88.00) and, on the average, among
medical technology ( ̅ 2 = 82.68) and radiologic
technology students ( ̅ 3 = 84.75). Similarly, manuscript
writing is better among students of the nursing ( ̅ 1 =
88.66) and medical technology ( ̅ 2 = 85.51) compared to
students in the radiologic technology programs ( ̅ 3 =
82.00). Findings presentation was deemed to be at the
same level among student groups of allied health
programs ( ̅ 1 = 84.43; ̅ 2 = 85.35; ̅ 3 = 85.00). One-way
analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in
the overall research capability of the students (p < 0.05).
Scheffé post-hoc analysis confirmed that the nursing
students attained better comprehension and actualization
of health research concepts. Concurring with the tenets
of comparative and pragmatic educational models,
comprehension and operationalization of research
concepts will differ among students of allied health
programs even when taught in standardized teaching
strategy. It is therefore recommended that an
institutionalized research instructional methodology,
contextualized and anchored at the core of every allied
health discipline, should be implemented.

Keywords: Comparative education, health science

education, instructional evaluation

1 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
INTRODUCTION
Research capability is a critical graduate
attribute that needs to be inculcated among
the students of any learning institution. By
instilling this characteristic among future
professionals, potential innovations and
practice improvements beneficial to
national interest can be produced. The
development of knowledge can then be
observed as the graduates participate in a
variety of research activities. Significant
changes in practice ideals will also emerge
as findings are incorporated in standard
development. These desired outcomes can
be achieved by employing relevant
instructional approaches that fit in the
demands of a specific discipline.
In the allied health professions, the task of
matching practice competencies with
curricular activities is considered a crucial
strategy in educating students in the health
sciences. This practice conveys promising
and positive student outcomes. Several
studies have emphasized that congruent
clinical expectations and student
requirements are essential to the positive
learning experience of the students [1, 2].
It is also believed that a contextualized
learning approach brings in the sum total
of the teacher’s experiences into their
students [3, 4] Interspersing these pieces of
evidence with existing realities compels
health science educators to revisit their
teaching strategies. This study was
conducted to review, assess, and compare
performances of college students in doing
allied health research. By examining these
student outcomes, perspectives in current
teaching practices were discovered. In the
process, revisions in the pedagogical
approach that incorporate a venturesome
learning environment were identified.
Scrutinizing educational methods is an
important step in improving academic
outcomes and processes. Through the
evaluation of pedagogical approaches,
structures to effect learning can be
2 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1
upgraded, and outcomes can be advanced
into comparable levels. It provides a
modernist context for the educational
experiences subscribed to by the students
[5, 6]. Leaders in the education sector can
systematically review the policies that they
are implementing and synthesize
refreshing guidelines and mechanisms to
invigorate their respective institutions.
Doing so benefits the individual discipline
that they are servicing, in particular, and
the society, in general.
Comparative studies in the past have
highlighted the importance of such an
evaluative method. In any level of
education, academic culture necessary for
outcomes improvement can be determined.
Curricular reforms, with reference from
benchmarked European standards,
produced innovations in delivering
physical education among Turkish
students [7]. Learning and motivation were
explored among teachers and students
across different regions. It was discovered
that resource-related circumstances, such
as classroom facility and student volume,
can affect internal and external motivation
of both educators and learners [8, 9]. The
dignity of students can also be promoted
whenever the education they receive is
relevant to their needs and determined
learning requirements [10]. Ultimately,
social roles and professional
responsibilities are better internalized
when pedagogical actions are suited to the
schooling needs of the students [11−13].
Realizing said research evidence, student
mobility becomes more apparent as
educational strategies across regions and
nations are equated [14]. The quality of
education emerges as comparative
measures were employed, because
effective educational methods, tools, and
procedures are disseminated to academic
institutions [15−17].
In the perspective of academe-industry
linkages, contextualizing the learning
 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
environment through comparative
education brings about significant
breakthroughs. Competence in doing
professional tasks improves when workers
are trained in program-specific curricula
[18]. Economic and market revolutions are
propelled when education is geared to
drive technological advancements [19, 20].
Cooperative attitudes are also fostered
among students when they are exposed in
internationally-benchmarked and
simulated work conditions [8]. These
findings prove how contextual education is
influential to national development. It
cannot be denied that the results of
comparative education undertakings bring
remarkable changes. But these same
undertakings must be conducted in the
health science profession, so as to institute
better competencies to future allied health
professions. Studies have shown that
incorporating foreign educational policy
elements in the learning milieu of students
improves their professional training
experiences [10] and cognitive and
reasoning skills [9]. It also instills
meaningful appreciation of learned skills
[21].
However, the allied health education
Table 1: Student records per cohort.
Cohort Frequency (n)
Nursing
Medical Technology
Radiologic Technology
Total
This research, in particular, aimed to
answer the following research questions:
 What is the research performance of
the allied health students?
 Is there a difference in the research
performance of the different allied
health students?
The outcome variable of research
performance was further explored and
examined into four subconstructs: (1)
3 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1
landscape is far from being equal [22, 23],
even as comparative and contextualized
education is highlighted as a good strategy
to improve graduate attributes. Several
factors were identified as contributory to
such inconsistency: individual factors
(e.g., age, sex, and ethnicity) and
infrastructural aspects (e.g., professional
stereotyping) are still prevalent in allied
health education systems [24]. Therefore,
these difficult circumstances drive the
need to reassess instructional
methodologies for allied health students,
most especially in health science research.
METHODOLOGY
This evaluation study reviewed the research
performance records of three student cohorts
in the allied health programs of a health
science institute: nursing, medical
technology, and radiologic technology. This
research aimed to compare and contrast the
outcomes of a research instructional
methodology to evaluate students’ knowledge
about research, and their skills in doing
research. The inclusion criteria for
determining the samples were all students
enrolled during academic year 2016–2017.
Table 1 summarizes the composition of
students in each cohort:
Percentage (%)
28 40.58
37 53.62
4 5.80
69 100.00
research knowledge, (2) proposal
preparation, (3) findings presentation, and
(4) manuscript writing. These outcomes
from different program cohorts were the
results of a standardized teaching program
of a health science institute in its research
subject. All the student cohorts received
the same instructional strategies in their
respective research subjects: the
conceptual lectures delivered, the
formative and summative assessment
 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
given, the curricular structure
implemented, and the evaluation tools
used to assess research outputs.
Additionally, the assessment tools that
were used by the institution displayed
acceptable levels of reliability: formative
and summative assessment methods had a
combined Cronbach alpha score of 0.78,
while research output evaluation tools
exhibited acceptable inter-rater reliability
of 79.43% agreement, with a Cronbach
alpha score of 0.77.
Mean and standard deviation of the grades
were used to describe data distribution and
location. Interpretation of aggregated
grades were based on the health science
institute’s zero-based grading system: 98–
100 – Excellent; 95–97 – Outstanding; 89–
94 – Very Good; 83–88 – Good; 77–82 –
Satisfactory; 75–76 – Average; and 0–74 –
Needs Improvement. One-way analysis of
variance was the statistical test of choice to
test if there is a significant difference in
research performance and the
subconstructs of the three student cohorts.
Table 2: Mean and standard deviation of grades in research knowledge.
Program Mean
Nursing 82.86
Medical Technology 78.70
Radiologic Technology 77.00
Total 82.86
Table 2 reflects the research knowledge
gained by the students in the course of
their research study. It shows that the
nursing students fared well ( ̅ 1 = 82.86) in
the written examinations and other similar
course requirements compared to medical
technology students ( ̅ 2 = 78.70) and
radiological technology students ( ̅ 3 =
77.00). Several things can be inferred from
this: Firstly, the standardized teaching
program for research may have been
designed for naturalistic research. This
difference can have an influence in
developing the materials for performance
assessments, which, in turn, may have an
4 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1
Scheffé post-hoc analysis was used to
confirm which cohort differed among the
rest. The data management and statistical
software used was SPSS version 23.
Permission to access records was granted
by the school’s administration, with the
expressed approval of the research ethics
board. The confidentiality and anonymity
of student records were ensured by
removing personal identifiers in the
collected scores. The research outcome
records were reported in aggregate to
ensure that the individual identity of each
student is not reflected in the paper.
Furthermore, only the researcher had
access to said data. There is no conflict of
interest, too, as this research is not
sponsored by any company.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section contains the aggregation of
data collected from the records of the
allied health cohorts and the results of the
one-way analysis of variance with the post
hoc test.
Standard Deviation Description
6.35 Good
4.75 Satisfactory
8.45 Satisfactory
6.35 Good
effect on the positivist nature of medical
technology and radiologic technology
research. Secondly, the experiences of the
teachers in a standardized program could
be geared towards the nursing program,
thus giving less emphasis on other
programs that they are teaching. As Print
(2014) argued, teacher expertise is
required to operate the formal curriculum
of research subjects. This configures the
teaching atmosphere towards the
specifications of a certain discipline.
Lastly, a standardized teaching
methodology is never enough to meet the
demands of an individual program.
 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1

Teaching research concepts is the single and capabilities. These concepts, therefore, must
most basic element in developing research be conveyed contextually and properly [25].

Table 3: Mean and standard deviation of grades in proposal preparation.

Program Mean Standard Deviation Description
Nursing 88.00 2.39 Good
Medical Technology 82.68 4.85 Good
Radiologic Technology 84.75 0.50 Good
Total 84.96 4.62 Good

Table 3 shows the grades of the students in
preparing their respective research
proposals. It can be noted that the nursing
students did better in writing research
proposals ( ̅ 1 = 88.00), unlike their
counterparts in the medical technology ( ̅ 2
= 82.68) and radiologic technology ( ̅ 3 =
84.75) programs. These results imply that
the nursing students have more access to
experienced research mentors that could
guide them in developing the research
problems and objectives, in performing the
literature review, in formulating the
hypothesis, and even in determining the
study designs and statistical plans. Hogan
(2015), in his book Philosophical
Perspectives on Teacher Education,
explained the role of teachers in students’
knowledge and skill development. He
emphasized that students need to have
access to mentors who would guide them
in exploring the “neighborhood of ideas”.
This mentorship, in turn, would enrich the
students’ quality of learning and would
translate into better student outcomes.
Further, teachers’ insight should be made
available to students to help cultivate
professional capabilities [26].

Table 4: Mean and standard deviation of grades in findings presentation.

Program Mean Standard Deviation Description
Nursing 84.43 3.13 Good
Medical Technology 85.35 4.85 Good
Radiologic Technology 85.00 0.00 Good
Total 84.96 4.07 Good

Table 4 reflects the students’ ratings in
terms of findings presentation. It shows
that nursing students and medical and
radiologic technology students exhibited
similar acquired capabilities in presenting
the results of their studies ( ̅ 1 = 84.43; ̅ 2 =
85.35; ̅ 3 = 85.00). This similarities in
grades suggest that the level of maturity
and confidence of students may have been
influenced by their age or by their
experience in public speaking. Confidence
needs to be developed at an early stage
because it is derivative of one’s orientation
in learning: it can determine the students’
attitude in facing opportunities for learning in
the clinical area. It will develop their
capability to convey messages articulately not
only in presenting research, but also in
conversing and coordinating with their
eventual healthcare teams in the future. This
is an aspect that needs to be developed among
healthcare professionals since they will be
dealing with people and social systems.
Allied health professions educators need to
realize this task soon before the students are
engaged in client care [27].

Table 5: Mean and standard deviation of grades in manuscript writing.

Program Mean Standard Deviation Description
Nursing 88.66 2.65 Very Good
Medical Technology 85.51 2.58 Good
Radiologic Technology 82.00 0.00 Good
Total 86.59 3.15 Good

5 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1

Table 5 displays the scores of students in effectuate contextual education. Journals

manuscript writing. The manuscripts of
nursing students ( ̅ 1 = 88.66) were rated
better compared to those written by
medical ( ̅ 2 = 85.51) and radiologic
technology students ( ̅ 3 = 82.00). Again,
these results could have been influenced
by the presence of faculty to mentor the
students. Hogan (2015) has another
explanation: another facet of a correct research reports, as they are
venturesome learning environment is the
availability of the necessary resources to
and other similar research materials that
might aid in manuscript writing may, thus,
still be limited. Opportunities to read
research reports were also limited, as the
course requirements in their professional
subjects do not include journal reading or
critiquing. This phenomenon affects the
way students perceive and recognize
important in writing their research
manuscripts.

Table 6: Mean and standard deviation in overall research performance.

Program Mean Standard Deviation Description
Nursing 86.91 2.42 Good
Medical Technology 83.31 2.45 Good
Radiologic Technology 83.00 1.96 Good
Total 84.75 2.98 Good

Table 6 shows the course grades of the
three student groups. Nursing students had
the highest course grade average ( ̅ 1 =
86.91), while the radiologic technology
students obtained the lowest ( ̅ 2 = 83.00).
Two things can be inferred from these
findings. Firstly, it can be argued that
nursing students are more familiar with
research concepts due to their continuous
exposure in journal article readings.
Secondly, the lower course grades of
medical and radiologic technology
students may have been caused by an
unmodified, standardized research training
program, which may not be suited to their
specific discipline. These factors may have
caused the students’ failure to
operationalize learned research concepts in
their field of practice.
Moreover, educational resources also
contribute to the way research subjects are
taught. Nursing students are more familiar
with their advisers because these faculty
members are more available for
consultation. Linkages with different
sectors were also established to help
learners and teachers explore the pathways
of completing their studies. These factors
are seen to be contributory to the good
grades of nursing students in research and
cultivated their capabilities because of the
opportunities that have been given to them
[28−30].

Table 7: One-way ANOVA of research performance and sub constructs.

Research Performance and Sub-
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Constructs
Between Groups 321.045 2 160.522 5.009 .009
Research
Within Groups 2115.158 66 32.048
Knowledge
Total 2436.203 68
Between Groups 452.011 2 226.006 14.904 .000
Proposal
Within Groups 1000.858 66 15.165
Preparation
Total 1452.870 68

6 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1

Between Groups 13.580 2 6.790 .403 .670

Findings
Within Groups 1113.290 66 16.868
Presentation
Total 1126.870 68
Between Groups 247.208 2 123.604 19.026 .000
Manuscript
Within Groups 428.770 66 6.497
Writing
Total 675.978 68
Between Groups 219.609 2 109.805 18.765 .000
Overall
Research Within Groups 386.202 66 5.852
Performance
Total 605.812 68

Table 7 shows the results of the one-way significant difference in findings

analysis of variance performed from the
course grades of the three student groups.
The results show that there is a significant
difference in the development of nursing,
medical technology, and radiologic
technology students in terms of: research
knowledge (p < 0.05), proposal
preparation (p < 0.05), and manuscript
writing (p < 0.05). However, there is no
presentation (p < 0.05) among allied health
students. These results provide data to
conclude that the performance of the
students in the research subject varies even
if they receive the same instructional
approach. This implies that for all students
to achieve the desired graduate attribute, a
more program-specific instruction in
research should be employed [31].

Table 8: Result of Scheffé post-hoc analysis.

Research Performance and Sub-Constructs Sig.
Medical Technology 0.018*
Nursing
Radiologic Technology 0.162
Research Nursing 0.018*
Medical Technology
Knowledge Radiologic Technology 0.850
Nursing 0.162
Radiologic Technology
Medical Technology 0.850
Medical Technology 0.000*
Nursing
Radiologic Technology 0.302
Proposal Nursing 0.000*
Medical Technology
Preparation Radiologic Technology 0.602
Nursing 0.302
Radiologic Technology
Medical Technology 0.602
Medical Technology 0.000*
Nursing
Radiologic Technology 0.000*
Manuscript Nursing 0.000*
Medical Technology
Writing Radiologic Technology 0.038
Nursing 0.000*
Radiologic Technology
Medical Technology 0.038
Medical Technology 0.000*
Nursing
Radiologic Technology 0.014
Overall Course Nursing 0.000*
Medical Technology
Grade Radiologic Technology 0.971
Nursing 0.014*
Radiologic Technology
Medical Technology 0.971
*significant at  = 0.05

7 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved

 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
Table 8 displays the result of the post-hoc
analysis using the Scheffé method. The
test reveals that the nursing students
differed significantly in terms of their
research performance compared to medical
technology and radiologic technology
students. This shows that much has to be
explored in the instruction of the non-
nursing students to improve their research
outcomes. The differences could have
been caused by a number of factors. The
four domains of human capability
espoused by Hogan (2015) can be utilized
to shed light to this observation. First,
familiarization of the nurse instructor to
medical technology and radiologic
technology concepts are limited. This
limits the possibility of opening a new
neighborhood of ideas necessary for the
development of innovative research
concepts for students. Second, since the
ideas from the nursing instructor are
limited, non-nursing students cannot
connect immediately to the substance of
the research topics discussed. This can
affect the way they appreciate research in
the context of their discipline. Third, the
higher education institution has only
forged new partnerships to systems that
will support the research of non-nursing
students. Only few pathways are
discovered and available to achieve
disciplined research. Fourth, the
pedagogical content knowledge of the
research teachers is also limited, to a point
that options to complete research in
different fields are less explored.
CONCLUSION
This quantitative research concurs with the
tenets of comparative and pragmatic
education: that despite the standardization
of research instructional methodology
among allied health programs, the
outcomes of such technique differs
substantially. Factors such as professional
context, relevance of educational
resources, and availability of qualified
teachers have to be taken into
8 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1
consideration. This study supports the fact
that, instead of standardizing the teaching
technique, it is more appropriate to
implement a harmonized, course-specific
approach in teaching health science
research. This will ensure that research
capability will be uniformly developed
among allied health students. It will also
guarantee a more meaningful learning
experience for the students.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on these findings, a number of
recommendations are suggested to
educational administrators, leaders, and
stakeholders. First, delegate research
subjects to faculty members who are
specialists in their respective disciplines.
Doing so will enrich the learning
experience of students, most especially in
crafting their proposal and research paper.
Second, faculty competencies in research
should be cultivated to ensure that students
are able to fully grasp the substance of
every research concept. Third, research
activities (e.g., journal reading and
analysis) should be infused in the
instructional method of the program’s
professional courses to familiarize the
students with research concepts. Fourth,
teachers need to develop a tailored
instructional approach in research that will
uniformly instill research graduate
attributes to all students. Last, educational
administrators and stakeholders have to
invest in equipment that will support the
research work of medical technology and
radiologic technology students (e.g.,
computers, laboratory equipment, and
reagents).
REFERENCES
1. Bernasconi A, Celis S (2017), “Higher
education reforms: Latin America in
comparative perspective”, Education
Policy Analysis Archives, Volume 25,
Issue 67, doi: 10.14507/epaa.25.3240
2. Frantz JM, Smith MR (2013),
“Exploring the subjective experiences
 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
of allied health professionals in their
transition from clinical educators to
academia: Barriers and facilitators to
successful transition”, African Journal
of Health Professions Education,
Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 37–41. doi:
10.7196/ajhpe.224
3. Harris A, Jones M (2018), “Why
context matters: A comparative
perspective on education reform and
policy implementation”, Educational
Research for Policy and Practice,
Volume 17, Issue 3, pp. 195–207. doi:
10.1007/s10671-018-9231-9
4. Hallin K, Kiessling A (2016), “A safe
place with space for learning:
Experiences from an interprofessional
training ward”, Journal of Inter
professional Care, Volume 30, Issue 2,
pp. 141–148. doi:
10.3109/13561820.2015.1113164.
5. Hitch D, Nicola-Richmond K (2016),
“Instructional practices for evidence-
based practice with pre-registration
allied health students: a review of
recent research and developments”,
Advances in Health Sciences
Education, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp.
1031−1045. doi: 10.1007/s10459-016-
9702-9
6. Hogan P (2015), “Cultivating human
capabilities in venturesome learning
environments. Philosophical
perspectives on teacher education”,
John Wiley & Sons Ltd., pp. 132−151,
West Sussex.
7. Iliasova Y (2017), “Professional
training of junior medical staff:
European experience”, Comparative
Professional Pedagogy, Volume 7,
Issue 4, pp. 120–125. doi:
10.1515/rpp-2017-0059
8. Krechetnikov KG, Pestereva NM
(2017), “A comparative analysis of the
education systems in Korea and Japan
from the perspective of
internationalization”, European
Journal of Contemporary Education,
Volume 6, Issue 1, pp. 77–88. doi:
9 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1
10.13187/ejced.2017.1.77
9. Li F (2018), “The expansion of higher
education and the returns of distance
education in China”, International
Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, Volume 19,
Issue 4, pp. 242–256. doi:
10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.2881
10. Liu J (2018), “A comparative study of
the effect of Bologna process on the
Italian higher education and Czech
higher education”, Education Reform
Journal, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 24–31.
doi: 10.22596/erj2018.0301.24.31
11. Loima J, Vibulphol J (2016),
“Learning and motivation in Thailand:
A comparative regional study on basic
education ninth graders”, International
Education Studies, Volume 9, Issue 1,
pp. 31–43. doi: 10.5539/ies.v9n1p31
12. Manyuk L, Kuchumova N (2018),
“Undergraduate medical
communication training by means of
information and communication
technologies in the USA and Ukraine”,
Comparative Professional Pedagogy,
Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 27–32. doi:
10.2478/rpp-2018-0004
13. Martin AJ, Martin TG, Evans P (2018),
“Motivation and engagement in
Jamaica: Testing a multidimensional
framework among students in an
emerging regional context”, Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment,
Volume 36, Issue 3, pp. 233–248. doi:
10.1177/0734282916674424
14. McLean M, McKimm J, Gibbs T
(2017), “Medical education in difficult
circumstances: A global responsibility
to contribute”, Medical Teacher,
Volume 39, Issue 1, pp. 4–6. doi:
10.1080/0142159X.2017.1254
15. McKimm J, Da Silva A, Edwards S,
Greenhill J, Taylor C (2015), “Women
and leadership in medicine and
medical education: international
perspectives. In M. Tsouroufli (Ed.)”,
Gender, careers and inequalities in
medicine and medical education:
 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
international perspectives, Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, pp. 69–98.
doi:
10.1108/S2051233320150000002005
16. Paul D, Ewen SC, Jones R (2014),
“Cultural competence in medical
education: Aligning the formal,
informal and hidden curricula”,
Advances in Health Sciences
Education, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp.
751–758. doi: 10.1007/s10459-014-
9497-5
17. Parker R, Gottlieb H, Dominguez D,
Sanchez-Diaz P, Jones M (2015),
“Integrating an interprofessional
education model at a private
University”, International Journal of
Higher Education, Volume 4, Issue 3,
pp. 112–118.
doi:10.5430/ijhe.v4n3p112
18. Print M (2014), “Can resilience be
built through a citizenship education
curriculum?”, Journal of Social
Science Education, Volume 13, Issue
3, pp. 83–89. doi: 10.2390/jsse-v13-i3-
1342
19. Rapchak M, Nolfi D, Turk M (2018),
“Implementing an interprofessional
information literacy course: impact on
student abilities and attitudes”, Journal
of the Medical Library Association,
Volume 106, Issue 4, pp. 464–470.
doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.455
20. Reinhard K, Pogrzeba A (2016),
“Comparative cooperative education:
Evaluating Thai models on work-
integrated learning, using the German
Duale Hochschule Baden-
Wuerttemberg model as a benchmark”,
Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative
Education, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp.
227–247.
21. Renganathan S, Kral I (2018),
“Comparative analysis of language and
education policies for indigenous
minorities in Australia and Malaysia”,
International Journal of Multicultural
Education, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp.
138–156.
10 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1
doi:10.18251/ijme.v20i1.1530
22. Schreiber-Barsch S, Bernhard-Skala C
(2018), “Doing adult Education as
‘tertium comparationis’: Comparative
research in cross-border regions at
Germany’s peripheries through the
lens of social spatiality”, Research in
Comparative and International
Education, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp.
259–275.
doi:10.1177/1745499918781111
23. Sheard A, O’Leary D (2018), “Why
near‐peer teaching should be in the
Teaching Excellence Framework
assessment”, Clinical Teacher,
Volume 15, Issue 6, pp. 509–510.
doi:10.1111/tct.12754
24. Sheludko I, Bondarenko M (2018),
“Professional education management:
Comparative analysis of Ukraine and
European Countries’ experience”,
Comparative Professional Pedagogy,
Volume 8, Issue 2, pp. 90–94.
doi:10.2478/rpp-2018-0024
25. Self T, Parham D (2016), “Students’
self-perceptions of interprofessional
education following participation on a
diagnostic team for autism spectrum
disorder”, Journal of Inter professional
Care, Volume 30, Issue 5, pp. 682–
684. doi:
10.1080/13561820.2016.1181615
26. Slater L (2013), “Building high-
performing and improving education
systems: Quality assurance and
accountability review”, CfBT
Education Trust,
27. Tymkiv N (2018), “Curricula and
programmes in petroleum engineering
for higher technical education
institutions: Comparative analysis”,
Comparative Professional Pedagogy,
Volume 8, Issue 1, pp. 20–26.
doi:10.2478/rpp-2018-0003
28. Van der Walt JL (2018), “The birth of
a “new” theory of education and its
application in comparative education
studies”, Bulgarian Comparative
Education Society,
 Journal of Nursing Research, Education and Management
e-ISSN: 2582-001X
Volume 2, Issue 1

29. Vikström S, Kamwesiga J, Mubangizi international education”, Bulgarian

A, Guidetti S (2017), “Differences as
catalysts for professional learning--
participating in a student exchange
program between Sweden and
Uganda”, Cogent Education, Volume
4, Issue 1, doi:
10.1080/2331186X.2017.1316348
30. Wolhuter C (2018) “Modern as
contested concept in comparative and
Comparative Education Society,
31. Ziviani J, Feeney R, Scharbun S,
Copland D, Hodges P (2014),
“Fostering and inspiring research
engagement (FIRE): program logic of
a research incubator scheme for allied
health students”, Journal of Allied
Health, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp.
140−145.

11 Page 1-11 © MAT Journals. All Rights Reserved

View publication stats