ArticleAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2021
Evaluating the Efficacy and Optimisation of the Peer-Led Flipped Model Using TEL Resources Within Neuroanatomy.
Article in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Scoping Review: Innovations in Clinical Neurology Education.Neurology. Education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The flipped classroom (where students prepare before and then develop understanding during class) and technology-enhanced learning (audio-visual learning tools) are increasingly used to supplement anatomy teaching. However, the supporting literature lacks robust methodology and is conflicting in demonstrating efficacy outcomes. Contrastingly, near-peer teaching (where senior students teach juniors on the same academic programme) is well researched and reported to be both effective and versatile. This provides an ideal vehicle in which to investigate and potentially optimise these approaches.This study aims to assess educational impact of the peer-led flipped model and student engagement and perceptions regarding traditional and TEL resources.A quasi-randomised, cross-sectional study was conducted with 281 second-year University of Southampton medical students. Students were randomly allocated to 3 groups: traditional lecture (control), flipped text resource, or flipped video resource. The first group received no pre-teaching material, but the flipped groups received a text or video pre-teaching resource. Objective outcomes measured were: Knowledge gain and retention via multiple-choice questionnaires and formative exams Student perceptions and engagement using questionnaires and 2 focus groups All groups demonstrated significant knowledge gain post-teaching (p < 0.0001). However, regardless of engagement with pre-teaching material, no significant difference was found in knowledge gain or retention between the groups. Students engaged 21.1% more with the text rather than video resource (p = 0.0019), but spent equal time using both (p = 0.0948). All resources and teaching approaches were perceived 'very useful' with no significant differences found between groups. A qualitative approach utilising thematic analysis of focus groups identified 4 themes, including 'Attitudes towards flipped classroom', which revealed mixed reviews and perceptions from participants.This study has found the peer-led flipped model is of no detriment to educational impact compared to peer-led traditional approaches in a well-established peer teaching programme in undergraduate medicine at the University of Southampton. Students value traditional and video resources but engage with them differently. Additionally, it was reported that in this experiment, NPT did not seem well suited to the flipped classroom, suggesting a rare limitation of the utility of NPT application within an anatomy curriculum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34476742What 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.