Learning outcomes from a biomedical research course for second year osteopathic medical students.

des Anges Cruser, Sarah K Brown, Jessica R Ingram, Alan L Podawiltz, Bruce D Dubin, John S Colston, Robert J Bulik
{"title":"Learning outcomes from a biomedical research course for second year osteopathic medical students.","authors":"des Anges Cruser,&nbsp;Sarah K Brown,&nbsp;Jessica R Ingram,&nbsp;Alan L Podawiltz,&nbsp;Bruce D Dubin,&nbsp;John S Colston,&nbsp;Robert J Bulik","doi":"10.1186/1750-4732-4-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A ubiquitous dilemma in medical education continues to be whether and how to integrate research competencies into the predoctoral curriculum. Understanding research concepts is imbedded in the six core competencies for physicians, but predoctoral medical education typically does not explicitly include research education. In an effort to quickly report academic research findings to the field, this is the second in a series of articles reporting the outcomes of a research education initiative at one college of osteopathic medicine. The first article described the competency model and reported baseline performance in applied understanding of targeted research concepts. This second article reports on the learning outcomes from the inaugural year of a course in basic biomedical research concepts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This course consisted of 24 total hours of classroom lectures augmented with web-based materials using Blackboard Vista, faculty moderated student presentations of research articles, and quizzes. To measure changes in applied understanding of targeted research concepts in the inaugural year of the course, we administered a pretest and a posttest to second year students who took the course and to first year students who took an informatics course in the same academic year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 154 matched pretests and posttests representing 56% of the 273 first and second year students. On average, the first year (53) and second year students (101) did not differ in their mean pretest scores. At posttest the second year students showed significant improvement in their applied understanding of the concepts, whereas the first year students' mean posttest score was lower than their mean pretest score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This biomedical research course appears to have increased the second year students' applied understanding of the targeted biomedical research concepts. This assessment of learning outcomes has facilitated the quality improvement process for the course, and improved our understanding of how to measure the benefits of research education for medical students. Some of the course content and methods, and the outcome measures may need to be approached differently in the future to more effectively lay the foundation for osteopathic medical students to utilize these concepts in the clinical setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":87450,"journal":{"name":"Osteopathic medicine and primary care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1750-4732-4-4","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Osteopathic medicine and primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-4732-4-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Background: A ubiquitous dilemma in medical education continues to be whether and how to integrate research competencies into the predoctoral curriculum. Understanding research concepts is imbedded in the six core competencies for physicians, but predoctoral medical education typically does not explicitly include research education. In an effort to quickly report academic research findings to the field, this is the second in a series of articles reporting the outcomes of a research education initiative at one college of osteopathic medicine. The first article described the competency model and reported baseline performance in applied understanding of targeted research concepts. This second article reports on the learning outcomes from the inaugural year of a course in basic biomedical research concepts.

Methods: This course consisted of 24 total hours of classroom lectures augmented with web-based materials using Blackboard Vista, faculty moderated student presentations of research articles, and quizzes. To measure changes in applied understanding of targeted research concepts in the inaugural year of the course, we administered a pretest and a posttest to second year students who took the course and to first year students who took an informatics course in the same academic year.

Results: We analyzed 154 matched pretests and posttests representing 56% of the 273 first and second year students. On average, the first year (53) and second year students (101) did not differ in their mean pretest scores. At posttest the second year students showed significant improvement in their applied understanding of the concepts, whereas the first year students' mean posttest score was lower than their mean pretest score.

Conclusions: This biomedical research course appears to have increased the second year students' applied understanding of the targeted biomedical research concepts. This assessment of learning outcomes has facilitated the quality improvement process for the course, and improved our understanding of how to measure the benefits of research education for medical students. Some of the course content and methods, and the outcome measures may need to be approached differently in the future to more effectively lay the foundation for osteopathic medical students to utilize these concepts in the clinical setting.

骨科医学生二年级生物医学研究课程的学习成果。
背景:医学教育中一个普遍存在的困境是是否以及如何将研究能力整合到博士前课程中。理解研究概念是医生的六项核心能力的一部分,但博士前医学教育通常不明确包括研究教育。为了快速向该领域报告学术研究成果,这是报告一所骨科医学院研究教育倡议成果的系列文章中的第二篇。第一篇文章描述了胜任力模型,并报告了对目标研究概念的应用理解中的基线表现。第二篇文章报告了生物医学基础研究概念课程第一年的学习成果。方法:本课程包括24小时的课堂讲座,辅以使用Blackboard Vista的基于网络的材料,教师主持学生的研究文章报告和测验。为了衡量课程第一年对目标研究概念的应用理解的变化,我们对选修该课程的二年级学生和在同一学年选修信息学课程的一年级学生进行了前测和后测。结果:我们分析了154项匹配的前测和后测,占273名一年级和二年级学生的56%。平均而言,一年级学生(53人)和二年级学生(101人)的平均前测分数没有差异。在后测中,二年级学生对概念的应用理解有显著提高,而一年级学生的后测平均分低于前测平均分。结论:这门生物医学研究课程似乎增加了二年级学生对目标生物医学研究概念的应用理解。这种对学习成果的评估促进了课程的质量改进过程,并提高了我们对如何衡量研究型教育对医学生的好处的理解。一些课程内容和方法,以及结果测量可能需要在未来进行不同的处理,以更有效地为骨科医学学生在临床环境中使用这些概念奠定基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信