ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2018
An impact on medical student knowledge outcomes after replacing peer lectures with small group discussions.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2018. 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.
- Development of a New Scoring System To Accurately Estimate Learning Outcome Achievements via Single, Best-Answer, Multiple-Choice Questions for Preclinical Students in a Medical Microbiology Course.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Active learning has been proven as an effective teaching method that increases students' academic performance, satisfaction, and promotes life-long learning. A previous study showed that a peer lecture was time-consuming for both faculty members and students without any increase in knowledge outcome achievement of students when comparing to faculty lectures. Therefore, we replaced all peer teachings, taught in 2015, with faculty lectures and small group discussions in an organ-system part which focused mainly on applications of medical microbiology in 2016. The organ-system part was further divided into 3 sections according to type of organ systems. The knowledge outcome achievement was compared using MCQ scores. Peer lectures were mainly used as a teaching method only in 2015 (91.5%, 43 hours from a total of 47 hours) while none of them was used in 2016. On the other hand, SDG were mainly used as a teaching method only in 2016 (73.9%, 51 hours from a total of 69 hours). Students of 2016 had significantly higher average MCQ scores than those of 2015 only in the section 3 (80.8% as compared with 60.5%; p value < 0.001). There was no significant difference in section 1, section 2, and overall MCQ scores. Apart from routine teaching preparation, there was no out-of-class preparation time for faculty lectures and SGD while peer teaching required at least 0.5-2 hours of extra out-of-class preparation time from at least 1 faculty member and 10-12 students per 1 hour of teaching. In conclusion, SGD provided equal or more knowledge outcome achievement of the student with less time-consuming than peer lecture. Therefore, at least in our teaching environment, SGD was proved to be a better option than a peer lecture for teaching applications of medical microbiology.
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.