Interactive seminars or small group tutorials in preclinical medical education: results of a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Learning in small group tutorials is appreciated by students and effective in the acquisition of clinical problem-solving skills but poses financial and resource challenges. Interactive seminars, which accommodate large groups, might be an alternative. This study examines the educational effectiveness of small group tutorials and interactive seminars and students' preferences for and satisfaction with these formats.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Students in year three of the Leiden undergraduate medical curriculum, who agreed to participate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT, n = 107), were randomly allocated to small group tutorials (n = 53) or interactive seminars (n = 54). Students who did not agree were free to choose either format (n = 105). Educational effectiveness was measured by comparing the participants' results on the end-of-block test. Data on students' reasons and satisfaction were collected by means of questionnaires. Data was analyzed using student unpaired t test or chi-square test where appropriate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were no significant differences between the two educational formats in students' test grades. Retention of knowledge through active participation was the most frequently cited reason for preferring small group tutorials, while a dislike of compulsory course components was mentioned more frequently by students preferring interactive seminars. Small group tutorials led to greater satisfaction.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We found that small group tutorials leads to greater satisfaction but not to better learning results. Interactive learning in large groups might be might be an effective alternative to small group tutorials in some cases and be offered as an option.</p

Evaluation of effectiveness of instruction and study habits in two consecutive clinical semesters of the medical curriculum munich (MeCuM) reveals the need for more time for self study and higher frequency of assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Seven years after implementing a new curriculum an evaluation was performed to explore possibilities for improvements.</p> <p>Purposes: To analyze students' study habits in relation to exam frequency and to evaluate effectiveness of instruction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Time spent on self study (TSS) and the quantity of instruction (QI) was assessed during the internal medicine and the surgical semester. Students and faculty members were asked about study habits and their evaluation of the current curriculum.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The TSS/QI ratio as a measure of effectiveness of instruction ranges mainly below 1.0 and rises only prior to exams. Students and teachers prefer to have multiple smaller exams over the course of the semester. Furthermore, students wish to have more time for self-guided study.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The TSS/QI ratio is predominantly below the aspired value of 1.0. Furthermore, the TSS/QI ratio is positively related to test frequency. We therefore propose a reduction of compulsory lessons and an increase in test frequency.</p

The Joint Influence of Intra- and Inter-Team Learning Processes on Team Performance: A Constructive or Destructive Combination?

In order for teams to build a shared conception of their task, team learning is crucial. Benefits of intra-team learning have been demonstrated in numerous studies. However, teams do not operate in a vacuum, and interact with their environment to execute their tasks. Our knowledge of the added value of inter-team learning (team learning with external parties) is limited. Do both types of team learning compete over limited resources, or do they form a synergistic combination? We aim to shed light on the interplay between intra- and inter-team learning in relation to team performance, by including adaptive and transformative sub-processes of intra-team learning. A quantitative field study was conducted among 108 university teacher teams. The joint influence of intra- and inter-team learning as well as structural (task interdependence) and cultural (team efficacy) team characteristics on self-perceived and externally rated team performance were explored in a path model. The results showed that adaptive intra-team learning positively influenced self-perceived team performance, while transformative intra-team learning positively influenced externally rated team performance. Moreover, intra-team and inter-team learning were found to be both a constructive and a destructive combination. Adaptive intra-team learning combined with inter-team learning led to increased team performance, while transformative intra-team learning combined with inter-team learning hurt team performance. The findings demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between both the scope (intra- vs. inter-team) and the level (adaptive vs. transformative) of team learning in understanding team performance