The Effect of Participation in a Small-Group Discussion Session on Medical Student Learning of Intestinal Pathophysiology

Original Research

Abstract

Medical students are faced with the challenge of assimilating a large amount of content in a short period of time. They are motivated to look for the most efficient approach to learning and to perform well on their national licensing examinations. Medical schools are driven by accrediting agencies to reform their curriculum to increase active and collaborative learning opportunities. This prospective study evaluated the performance outcomes of an active small-group instructional session on benign colonic disorders between students who attended the session and those who did not. All students had access to the same materials and the recordings of the session through the university’s learning management system. Performance was determined by a 12-question pre-/posttest as well as the related items on the course’s final examination. All students performed significantly better on the posttest compared to the pretest (“Yes” attended and “No” did not attend: pre/post p < 0.001). There was no difference between the two groups on posttest performance (p = 0.59) or on the related questions on the final examination [Yes/No, 83.7/85.6% (p = 0.56)]. However, students who attended the session had a lower score on the remainder of the examination than those who did not attend the session [Yes/No, 81.8/85.0% (p = 0.04)] suggesting that the in-class small-group activity may have had a protective effect on performance. This study showed that participation in an active learning session was non-inferior and may benefit students that would have otherwise had lower performance justifying the large faculty effort in designing and delivering this modality.

Keywords

Small-group learning Active learning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Jonathan Kibble, PhD, for his guidance with data interpretation and statistics.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hazlehurst B. When I say... distributed cognition. Med Educ. 2015;49(8):755–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mann KV. Theoretical perspectives in medical education: past experience and future possibilities. Med Educ. 2011;45(1):60–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03757.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prober CG, Heath C. Lecture halls without lectures—a proposal for medical education. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(18):1657–9.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1202451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pluta WJ, Richards BF, Mutnick A. PBL and beyond: trends in collaborative learning. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25(sup1):S9–S16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2013.842917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crede M, et al. Class attendance in college: a meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Rev Educ Res. 2010;80(2):272–95.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310362998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khan HU, Khattak AM, Mahsud IU, Munir A, Ali S, Khan MH, et al. Impact of class attendance upon examination results of students in basic medical sciences. J Ayub Med Coll. 2003;15(2):56–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    White C, Bradley E, Martindale J, Roy P, Patel K, Yoon M, et al. Why are medical students ‘checking out’ of active learning in a new curriculum? Med Educ. 2014;48(3):315–24.  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine, University of Central FloridaHealth Science Campus of Lake NonaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations