Tıp eğitiminde bir seçmeli program: İşitme Engelli Bireylerle İletişim ve Türk İşaret Dili

Year 2016, Volume: 29 Issue: 1, 14 - 22, 04.03.2016

Ozlem Midik Figen Basar Mehmet Emirzeoglu Mehmet Emirzeoglu Gamze Alaylı Gamze Alayli Gokhan Sarisoy Gokhan Sarısoy Emre Gunbey Emre Gunbey Murat Yuce Erdal Agar

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, tıp öğrencileri için uygulanan İşitme
Engelli Bireylerle İletişim ve Türk İşaret Dili seçmeli program
çıktılarını paylaşmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Öğrenci geribildirimleri 10 başlık altında
21 önermeden oluşan bir anket kullanılarak toplandı. Öğrenci
başarısı, teorik ve beceri sınav sonuçlarıyla, program başarısı ise
portfolyo yazılarıyla değerlendirildi. Veri analizinde niceliksel ve
niteliksel betimleyici analiz kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Öğrencilerin programa genel olarak verdikleri
puanların ortalaması 10 üzerinden 8,53±0,88’dir. Öğrenciler
bloğun yetkinlik alanı olarak profesyonelliğe katkısını 8,45±1,64,
tıbbi bilgi ve anlayışa katkısını 7,72±1,66, klinik becerilere katkısını
7,92±1,99 ile üst düzey becerilere katkısını 8,09±1,52 olarak
ifade ettiler. Öğrencilerin blok sonunda sınav sonuç ortalamaları
88,39±0,76’dır. Programın en önemli çıktısı Türk İşaret Dili’ni
öğrenmek oldu.
Sonuç: Bulgularımız, programın öğrenme üzerine olumlu
etkisi olduğunu göstermekte ve öğrenci geri bildirimleri programın
sürekliliğini gerekli kılmaktadır.

Keywords

Eğitim programı geliştirme, Tıp eğitimi, İletişim, Türk İşaret Dili, İşitmeyen bireyler

An elective program in medical education: Communication with Hard of Hearing People and Turkish Sign Language

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to present the outcome of the
Communication with Hard of Hearing People and Turkish Sign
Language elective program which is implemented for medical
students.
Materials and Methods: Feedback from the students was
collected using a questionnaire of 21 statements under 10 headings.
Student success was evaluated by theoretical and skill examination
results and program success was evaluated by portfolio essays. In
the data analysis, descriptive qualitative and quantitative analysis
was used.
Results: The mean overall score given to the program by
the students was 8.53±0.88 out of 10. The students expressed
the contribution levels of the block to the competence areas
of professionalism as 8.45±1.64, to medical knowledge and
understanding as 7.72±1.66, to clinical skills as 7.92±1.99 and to
high-level skills as 8.09±1.52. The average of the block assessment
scores of the students was 88.39±0.76 at the end of the block. The
most significant output of the program was learning Turkish Sign
Language.
Conclusion: The findings of this study show that the effect of
the program on learning was highly positive and student feedback
was encouraging for continuity of the program. 

Keywords

Educational program development, Medical education, Communication, Turkish Sign Language, Deaf/hard of hearing people

References

• 1. World Health Organisation. Action Plan “Better health for persons with disabilities” Frequently Asked Questions. 2015 http://www.who.int/disabilities/policies/actionplan/faq. pdf?ua=1 (Accessed 20 April 2015).
• 2. World Health Organisation. World Report on Disability. 2011. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789240685215_ eng.pdf. (Accessed 20 April 2015).
• 3. World Health Organisation. Promoting ear and hearing care through CBR Community-Based Rehabilitation. 2012. http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/news/CBREarHearingCare. pdf. (Accessed 20 April 2015).
• 4. Guidelines for Reporting and Writing about People with Disabilities. 2008. http://www.rtcil.org/products/RTCIL%20publications/Media/ Guidelines%20for%20Reporting%20and%20Writing%20 about%20People%20with%20Disabilities.pdf. (Accessed 20 April 2015)
• 5. WHO. Deafness and hearing loss. 2015. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/. (Accessed 22 April 2015)
• 6. WHO global estimates on prevalence of hearing loss. 2012 http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/WHO_GE_HL.pdf (Accessed 24 April 2015)
• 7. Türkiye Özürlüler Araştırması-2002, ileri analiz raporu. Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, 2005.
• 8. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Engelli İstatistikleri. 2010. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1017. (Accessed 2015 April, 24).
• 9. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Özürlülerin Sorun ve beklentileri araştırması. 2011. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=6370. (Accessed 2015 April, 26).
• 10. Kemaloğlu YK. Ülkemizde İşitme Engellilerin Nüfusu Ne Kadardır? http://engelsiz.karatekin.edu.tr/e_isit/dosya/EK-01. pdf. (Accessed 2015 April, 26).
• 11. Barnett S. Communication with deaf and hard of hearing people: A guide for medical education. Acad Med 2002; 77:694-700. doi: 00001888-200207000-00009
• 12. Steinberg A, Barnett S, Meador, HE, Wiggins, EA, Philip Z. Health Care System accessibility. Experiences and perceptions of deaf people. JGIM 2006; 21: 260-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1525- 1497.2006.00340.x
• 13. Lezzioni LI, O’day BL, Killeen M, Harker H. Communicating about health care: observations from persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Ann Intern Med 2004;140: 356-63. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-140-5-200403020-00011.
• 14. Chaveiro N, Barbosa MA, Porto CC. Literature revision about the attendance of deaf patient by health professionals. Rev Esc Enferm USP 2008; 42: 578-83. doi: 10.1590/S0080- 62342008000300023.
• 15. Hoang L, LaHousse SF, Nakaji MC, Sadler GR. Assessing deaf cultural competency of physicians and medical students. J Cancer Educ 2011; 26: 175-82. doi: 10.1007/s13187-010- 0144-4.
• 16. Kemaloğlu YK, Kemaloğlu PY. The history of sign language and deaf educaton in Turkey. Kulak Burun Boğaz Ihtis Derg 2012; 222: 65-76.doi: 10.5606/kbbihtisas.2012.013.
• 17. Kemaloğlu YK. Türkiye’de işitme kayıplarının ve işitme engelinin genel görünümü Türkiye Klinikleri JENT Spec Top 2012; 5:1-10.
• 18. Türk Dil Kurumu. Türk İşaret Dili Sözlüğü. http://tdk.gov. tr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=264. (Accessed 2015 April 26).
• 19. Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu. Engelli Öğrenciler için alınan kararlar. 2013. http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/ogrenci/kararlar. (Accessed 2015 April 26).
• 20. Bligh J, Brice J. Course design. In: Cantillon P, Wood D (Editors). ABC of Learning and Teaching in Medicine. 2nd Edition. Cambridge, UK:Wiley Blackwell, 2010.
• 21. Bates R. A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Eval Prog Planning 2004; 27: 341–47. doi:10.1016/j. evalprogplan.2004.04.011.
• 22. Bieger GR, Gerlach GJ. Educational Research. A practical approach. New York:Delmar Publishers, 1996.
• 23. Harden R M, Davis M H. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 5. The core curriculum with options or special study modules. Med Teach 1995; 17: 125-48. doi: 10.3109/01421599509008301.
• 24. Tıp Fakültesi 2015-2016 Akademik Takvimi. http://www. okm.omu.edu.tr/ (Accessed 26 April 2015).
• 25. Kemaloğlu YK. Konuşamayan işitme engellilerin (sağırların) tarihi. KBB ve BBC 2014; 22: 14-28. doi: 10.4274/ Tjh.2012.0070.
• 26. Farber JH, Nakaji MC, Sadler GR. Medical students, deaf patients, and cancer. Med Educ 2004; 38:1181-202. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02010.x.
• 27. Thew D, Smith SR, Chang C, Starr M. The Deaf Strong Hospital Program: A model of Diversity and Inclusion Training for first year medical students. Acad Med 2012; 87:1496-500. doi:  10.1097/ACM.0b013e31826d322d.
• 28. Lock E. A workshop for medical students on deafness and hearing impairements. Acad Med 2003; 78: 1229-34. doi: 00001888-200312000-00006.
• 29. Deuster D, Matulat P, Schmidt CM, Knief A. Communication skills for interviewing hearing-impaired patients. Med Educ 2010; 44:1117-147. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03822.
• 30. Arık E. Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research. UK:Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013
• 31. Dikyuva H, Zeshan U. Türk işaret dili, birinci seviye. 1. Baskı. Nijmegen: The Ishara Press, 2008.
• 32. Makaroglu B, Dikyuva H. Yabancı Dil olarak Türk İşaret Dili (A1-A2 Düzeyi) Öğrenci Kitabı. Ankara:Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2015.