Trial reportMedical education2025
Should medical teachers spend more time modelling or coaching students? A dual eye-tracking and randomised controlled study on peer instruction in sonography.
Trial report in Medical education, 2025. 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.
- Should medical teachers spend more time modelling or coaching students? A dual eye-tracking and randomised controlled study on peer instruction in sonography.Medical education · 2025Trial
- Competing institutional logics in surgical training: a qualitative study of coping strategies in China's dual-track system.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhen first introducing medical procedures, instructors must decide how much of their limited time must be allocated between modelling (demonstrate and explain) and coaching (scaffold and support) students. Given the time constraints in clinical routine, it is currently unknown which relative proportion of modelling versus coaching is more efficient for procedural learning.
methodsWe randomly assigned 73 students without prior knowledge to either an extended modelling (EM) or an extended coaching (EC) group for an emergency sonography training. In the EM group, medical teachers demonstrated a routine examination explaining their thought process, while also providing some coaching. In the EC group, students trained more independently with consistent teacher support, with less emphasis on modelling. We used dual mobile eye-tracking and voice recording to objectify the teacher-student interactions and applied a comprehensive assessment to understand which learning domains improved under which condition.
resultsOn post-tests, the EC group outperformed the EM group by 12% in interpreting dynamic sonographic imagery (p = 0.014). They completed the ultrasound examinations 7% faster (p = 0.050). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in interpreting static sonographic imagery (p = 0.322) nor in practical scores (p = 0.062). Contrary to expectations, there were no differences between the groups in terms of eye movement metrics that explained the performance effects. However, two behavioural variables were positively related with learning outcomes across both groups: the percentage of joint visual attention between teacher and student (β = 0.316, p < 0.001) and the number of words spoken during the training (β = 0.175, p = 0.004).
conclusionThis study provides empirical evidence that EC may be particularly effective when introducing new procedural medical skills. In learning complex procedures, direct sensorimotor experience with guided support appears more advantageous than extended observation. These findings suggest that medical educators should give students more opportunities for supervised hands-on practice rather than relying primarily on demonstration-based teaching.
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.