Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36415501›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2022

"I really liked the chance to talk about it": Students' Reflections on the Process of Completing Paper Puzzles, a Novel Active Learning Activity.

Madison B Bagley, Andrew G Smith, David A Morton, Candace J Chow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Madison B BagleyUniversity of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT USA.
Andrew G SmithDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT USA.
David A MortonDepartment of Neurobiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT USA.
Candace J ChowDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7939-7930

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Research shows active learning is an effective teaching method. However, few qualitative studies explore medical student perceptions of the active learning process. The present study explored what students thought about while completing paper puzzles, an active learning tool used at the University of Utah School of Medicine, to understand what and how medical students think while engaged in active learning. Materials and Methods: To investigate second-year medical students' attitudes toward these active learning exercises, three Zoom-based focused groups were held and recorded throughout the course. Recordings were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis. Results: Students reported that peer interactions were of high value, and that while some interactions and thought processes were action-oriented, others were more metacognitive. Other benefits of the activity included promotion of learning, provision of structure, and designation of high-yield concepts. Challenges included feelings of confusion, problems with timing or difficulty of the tasks, and low utility without adequate preparation. Discussion: These findings reflect student-acknowledged pros and cons of active learning described in education literature and add further insight into the thoughts and conversations students have during active learning activities. These include practicing metacognitive skills, triaging information, and learning from peers. Conclusions: These data further elucidate student perceptions of active learning activities in medical education. Though focused on a specific activity, the data can help medical educators understand what students appreciate about active learning and what they think about while engaged in such activities. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-022-01682-y.

Indexed as

Active learningMetacognitionQualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID36415501
PMCPMC9672609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.