ArticleJournal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience2017
An Attitudinal Survey of Undergraduate Neuroscience Students Regarding Their Views on the Relevance of Lectures to their Education.
Article in Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Student Evaluation of a Learning Community Model Adapted to Student and Curriculum Needs.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2022Article
- Using Blogs as Practice Writing About Original Neuroscience Papers Enhances Students' Confidence in Their Critical Analysis of Research.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2018Article
- A Case Study in the Use of Primary Literature in the Context of Authentic Learning Pedagogy in the Undergraduate Neuroscience Classroom.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in technology have seen a significant growth in the integration of e-learning into university education. Coupled with this trend are the learning approaches used by "Generation Connected" or GenC students, whose prolific use of digital technology is a defining characteristic. This has resulted in questions being asked as to whether in-class university lecture time is still relevant to university education. Here we conducted a case study with a group of undergraduate neuroscience students to assess their views on the relevance of attending lectures, why they attend or the reasons for non-attendance, and on what makes a good lecture. This is with a view to informing the design of new teaching approaches that may be more beneficial in maximising student engagement, and facilitating learning. The survey instrument was a ten-item questionnaire that collected both qualitative and quantitative data. Over 90% of students were of the view that lectures were beneficial to their learning, while only 4% thought they were an outdated mode of education. Three main themes emerged when students were asked what makes a good lecture: 1. Engagement, 2. Time, and 3. Varied format. We discuss the implications of these findings and suggest how these student views could be woven into the design of teaching approaches to increase the relevance of in-class lecture time in undergraduate neuroscience education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29371838PMC5777834What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.