ArticleMedical science educator2023
Small-Group Teaching: Should It Be Recorded?
Article in Medical science educator, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor on "Small-Group Teaching: Should it be Recorded?"Medical science educator · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recording large-group lectures is commonplace in higher education, allowing students to access content asynchronously and remotely. With the move towards online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, recording of small-group teaching sessions has also become increasingly common; however, the educational value of this practice is unknown. Methods: All medical students rotating through the Acute Medicine Department of a large teaching hospital were invited to enrol in the study. Consenting students were recorded for the second half of an online case-based learning (CBL) session. The recording was available for 6 months; viewing patterns were analysed. Students were sent a questionnaire after the session, asking them to reflect on the recorded and unrecorded halves of the session. Findings: Thirty-three students underwent recording in 12 separate groups; 31 students (94%) completed the questionnaire. All 31 respondents (100%) described the session as "useful" or "very useful". Twenty-four respondents (77%) recommended continuing to record small-group sessions and 17 (55%) reported being "likely" or "very likely" to watch the recording. Six respondents (19%) reported a negative impact of being recorded. During 6 months of follow-up, no students returned to view the recording for more than 1 minute. Conclusion: Despite positive feedback for the session and high student demand for ongoing recording, no students viewed the recording for any significant duration. One-fifth of students reported a negative impact of being recorded. The findings from this study do not support routine recording of small-group CBL sessions, even where demand for this may exist. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-023-01837-5.
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.