Published online: 5 September, TAPS 2017, 2(3), 28
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2017-2-3/LE1045

Perumbilavil Kaithamanakallam Rajesh¹ & Bharathi Sengodan²

¹Medical Education Unit, AIMST University, Malaysia; ²AIMST University, Malaysia

Undergraduate medical education builds upon the knowledge gained in the basic science phase to understand the applied aspects in the clinical phase. The spiralling curriculum and the teaching learning delivery methods make definite impact on the sharing of knowledge and the acquisition of skills and attitude. We referred to Akira Kurusowa and tried to apply his innovative, unorthodox but effective narration style to teaching learning methods.

Feedback from medical students revealed that they were confused when the same topic was handled by different departments during the same phase of education or when it was reinforced in later years. We used the Rashomon effect (Redfern, 2013) to reinforce concepts and his cinematography presentations to highlight the must know and to stress on the specific learning outcomes at each stage of learning.

In Rashomon, Kurusowa had different characters explain incidents based on their perspectives. The scenes were replayed but with the onus falling on the character who was explaining the perspective. This was the lesson plan followed by the lecturers when they facilitated integrated sessions.

Kurusowa used the flashbacks and forwards extensively in his narration. This technique can be used to reinforce information and to stress on different aspects as required. (Phillips, 2000). Reinforcement of prior knowledge need not always feature at the start of a lecture or the teachinglearning activity; we could use it when appropriate. The PBL trigger is an example of using a clinical vignette (flashforward) to raise interest in the students to relate and review the relevant basic science.

The clinical content always excites the basic science students. We used his butterfly theory to innovate the think-link-think concept to connect pieces of information. For a lecture on the immunisation schedule in the clinical years, the links can lead to information on primary and secondary immune response or the advantages of active immunity. Similar links can be used to introduce the clinical manifestations of measles when the measles vaccine is discussed during the basic science phase.

Use of Kurusowa style has not only helped the students learn meaningfully but has enabled the teachers to be aware of the specific learning outcomes, lesson plan and blue print. Pre and post teaching learning activity questionnaires have shown evidence of a better understanding in lectures where the Kurusowa approach has been practiced. It helps to adopt best practices of narration seen in movies to ‘vector’ teaching learning.

Declaration of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

Phillips, D.C. (2000). Interpreting the seventies, or, Rashomon meets educational theory. Educational Theory, 50(3), 321-338.

Redfern, N. (2013). Film style and narration in Rashomon, Journal of Japanese and Korean Cinema. 5(1-2), 21-36.

*Prof. Dr. P. K. Rajesh
Tel: +6 04 4298000 ext 1332
Fax: +6 04 4298007/8008/8009
Email: rajesh@aimst.edu.my

Published online: 2 May, TAPS 2018, 3(2), 54
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2018-3-2/LE2032

Junichi Tanaka

Department of Education and support for Regional Medicine, Tohoku University Hospital, Japan

It was interesting to read the letter from Rajesh and Sengodan (2017) published in The Asia Pacific Scholar (TAPS) Volume 2 Number 3 regarding the Kurusowa approach to teaching and learning (Rajesh & Sengodan, 2017). The authors discuss the Rashomon effect in the letter and hence, I would like to elaborate further on the “Rashomon approach.”

J. M. Atkin (1975) proposed the Rashomon approach derived from Akira Kurosawa’s movie Rashomon. Atkin explains the Rashomon approach in contrast to the technological approach from the 1974 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development meeting held in Japan.

The technological approach establishes general goals and then reassigns them to measurable goals. Educational materials are created and learning activities are conducted to achieve the set goals.

In the Rashomon approach, the general goals are set first. After that, however, the teacher fully understands the general goals, utilizes the experience and technological expertise of individual teachers, and engages in creative learning activities to realize the goals. In such learning environments, the learner’s behavior is evaluated based on various aspects to see whether the set goals were achieved. The point of emphasis is an “improvisational activity” performed by the teacher. However, to improvise in a particular way, the teacher must have the ability to understand the content and facilitate effectively to benefit the student. Therefore, the importance of teacher training is emphasized.

As background to this approach, not only the intended result but the unintended hidden curriculum, that go unnoticed as secondary results in curriculum evaluation, can sometimes have significant educational impact.

In that respect, the Rashomon approach is distinctive as learning activities are conducted based not only on goals provided externally but also on learners’ internal interests.

The common point between the Rashomon effect and the Rashomon approach is that multiple people assign different meanings to certain events, thereby producing various perceptions. The Rashomon effect is widely recognized and studied under cultural anthropology. However, we still do not have enough knowledge to regard this approach as a pedagogical method.

For handling clinical cases, a biopsychosocial model has been proposed to capture disease or illness as a system of biological, psychological, and social factors. This model and the Rashomon approach are very similar in handling multifaceted problems and issues. Therefore, in complicated clinical cases, I believe that education through the Rashomon approach will be very appropriate and effective.

Declaration of Interest

The author declared no competing interest.

References

Rajesh, P. K., & Bharathi, S. (2017). The Kurusowa approach to teaching learning. The Asia Pacific Scholar, 2(3), 28.
https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2017-2-3/LE1045

Atkin, J. M. (l975). A New Evaluator Perspective for Professors of Education. A. Bagley (Ed), The Professor of Education: An Assessment of Conditions (pp. 81-84). Minneapolis: Society of Professors of Education, College of Education, University of Minnesota.
Retrieved from https://societyofprofessorsofeducation.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/profed_atkins.pdf.

*Junichi Tanaka
Department of Education and support for Regional Medicine Tohoku University Hospital
Address 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai
+81-22-717-7587
bdtpr392@hosp.tohoku.ac.jp

Published online: 7 May, TAPS 2019, 4(2), 67
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2019-4-2/LE2138R

Soh Jian Yi

Department of Paediatrics, Khoo Teck Puat-National University Children’s Medical Institute, National University Hospital, Singapore

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for pointing out the similarities between the two Cycles and Professor Carol Dweck’s studies on Mindsets.

Professor Dweck’s mindsets are, in fact, part of the two Cycles. I agree with the need to provide more practical examples – the limitation here being the number of words I could pen in a journal article, plus the existence of the 200-page book of the same name, that does illustrate the exact examples you have asked for.

You are also right in that it would be speculative to classify all students/ learners on Earth, in the No-Ownership Cycle, as wanting self-praise. The Cycles were not written to assume that all learners must fulfil all points in each Cycle, such as wanting self-praise – that certainly cannot be true. The same can be said for those who project low self-esteem. I would quietly ask whether in the group with low self-esteem, would the (unspoken) desire be to then protect the self-image and self-praise?…or to go on to tear themselves further to bits?

I will elaborate further on two distinctions between the “fixed” and “growth” mindsets, and what seems to be similar in the No-Ownership Cycles and Ownership Cycles respectively.

The first distinction is that Cycles describe, chronologically, the general subconscious flow of thoughts that lead to the exact behaviors we see in each respective Cycle; the Mindsets don’t explain this.

The second distinction is that if one looks at the driving motivation in the Ownership Cycle to be a “I can be better” mindset – akin to the “growth” mindset – then the “this is the image I have of the world and I should be, in a fixed” mindset is akin to the “fixed” mindset.

Thank you for reading.

Note On Contributor

Dr Soh Jian Yi’s article, The Ownership Cycle and self-regulated learning, was published in TAPS Volume 4 Number 1.

Declaration of Interest

There is no conflict of interest, including financial, consultant, institutional or otherwise for the author.

*Soh Jian Yi
National University Hospital
Department of Paediatric Medicine
1E Kent Ridge Road,
NUHS Tower Block Level 12, Singapore
Email: jian_yi_soh@nuhs.edu.sg

Published online: 7 May, TAPS 2019, 4(2), 66-67
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2019-4-2/LE2138

Ching-Hui Sia

Department of Cardiology, National University Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore

Dear Editor,

I read with great interest the case study on “The Ownership Cycle and self-regulated learning” published by Jian Yi Soh in The Asia-Pacific Scholar (Soh, 2019) and congratulate the author for the development of this framework. The author describes how the teacher may encounter 2 different types of learners in the educational setting and how the ownership cycle may play a role in explaining difficult teaching encounters. He also proposes a 6-step intervention on how to help learners with difficulty.

There are parallels to be drawn between the 2 types of Ownership Cycles proposed and the well-described theory of Growth and Fixed mindsets (Dweck, 2006), in the context of medical education (Ricotta, Huang, Hale, Freed, & Smith, 2018). As a brief summary, learners with a Growth mindset feel that their intelligence can improve, while those with a Fixed mindset feel that their intelligence cannot change.

A similarity between Soh’s Ownership Cycle and Dweck’s Growth mindset is that in both instances learners are interested in self-improvement and take feedback as opportunities to improve oneself. A difference between Soh’s No-Ownership Cycle and Dweck’s fixed mindset is that in Soh’s model, there is an intrinsic assumption that learners are driven by personal ego and pride with the resultant formation of a “force field of rejection of the outside world”. Dweck’s theory makes no such assumption. It would be speculative to assume that students in the No-Ownership Cycle might want to praise themselves. A student with a fixed mindset with no desire for self-praise may also have the descriptions of “reflection on escapism” and “judgment focused on preserving self-image” applied to them. It might be hasty on the teacher’s part to assume that those who do not take well to feedback are interested in self-praise – This does not address the issue of learners with poor self-esteem. In fact, Ricotta et al. (2018) recommend that teachers themselves adopt a growth mindset when teaching learners, focusing on processes rather than fixed attributes which learners can improve on.

It would have been more illustrative if the author had provided certain examples of his own practice so as to better demonstrate the ownership cycle in daily use, particularly in an Asian educational context where cultural norms may differ from Western values, and share the practicability and challenges of implementing such an educational framework.

Note On Contributor

Ching-Hui Sia, MBBS, MRCP(UK), MMed(Int Med), is a Senior Resident at the National University Heart Centre Singapore.

Declaration of Interest

There is no conflict of interest, including financial, consultant, institutional or otherwise for the author.

References

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.

Ricotta, D. N., Huang, G. C., Hale, A. J., Freed, J. A., & Smith, C. C. (2018). Mindset theory in medical education. The Clinical Teacher, 15, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12765

Soh, J. Y. (2019). The Ownership Cycle and self-regulated learning. The Asia-Pacific Scholar, 4(1), 65-68. https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2019-4-1/CS2047

*Ching-Hui Sia
National University Heart Centre
Department of Cardiology
1E Kent Ridge Road, NUHS Tower Block Level 9
Singapore 119228
Telephone: +67795555
E-mail Address: ching_hui_sia@nuhs.edu.sg