ArticleCureus2023
Transition From Observational to Collaborative Learning to Augment Practical Skill Training in First-Year Medical Students.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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.
- Observational
- The Role of Short Videos in Medical Training: Student Feedback and an Experiential Learning Perspective.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2025Article
- Collaborative teaching among ultrasonographers, anesthesiologists, and vascular surgeons: its unique role in specialty training for vascular surgeons in developing countries.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Students exhibit less interest in hematology demonstration experiments as they are not expected to do it during their examination. Adopting a different strategy, like collaborative learning, might spark interest, motivate them to work together towards a shared objective, and help further learning and understanding. The current study aimed to assess the effectiveness of collaborative learning in comparison with traditional practical demonstration. Methodology First MBBS students were divided into two groups of 50 each (1 - collaborative learning, 2 - traditional demonstration). In the traditional demonstration, the experiment was demonstrated by faculty using the required materials. In the collaborative learning method, 50 students were divided into groups (seven of seven each) and each group was provided with procedural details of the experiment and requisite materials. At the end of the experiment, assessment was done. In collaborative learning groups, the team cohesion scale (TCS) was employed to analyze group dynamics. Students' perceptions, and feedback regarding collaborative learning as a tool in practical experiments were collected using a five-point Likert scale. Results Post-experiment assessment scores in collaborative learning (8.65±1.54) were significantly higher than the traditional demonstration group (7.06±1.46). High scorers in TCS consistently belonged to groups that completed the experiment on time (positive outcome), whereas students with low scores often belonged to groups that did not complete the experiment (negative outcome). Conclusion Collaborative learning may be used for practical teaching in medical education as it fosters good communication, enables problem-solving, aiding the Indian medical graduate in fulfilling the role of a team member.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.