学生满意度与传统和模块化小组同伴辅导课程的比较

J. Cross, Rodney L. Nyland, Sarah Lerchenfeldt
{"title":"学生满意度与传统和模块化小组同伴辅导课程的比较","authors":"J. Cross, Rodney L. Nyland, Sarah Lerchenfeldt","doi":"10.15404/MSRJ/07.2019.174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Our allopathic medical school has utilized a peer-tutoring program since inception in 2011, where second-year medical students teach first-year students in 2-h lecture-style review sessions. In 2015, an alternative format was implemented using four, repeating 30-min modules. This study was designed to compare student satisfaction with both approaches. Methods: An online survey was emailed to students graduating in 2018 (n = 97) and 2019 (n = 127). Results: A total of 72 (32.6%) responding students were included in the study, 35 from the class of 2018 (Co2018) and 37 from the class of 2019 (Co2019). Fewer Co2018 students, who received traditional instruction, were ‘very satisfied with the session timing’ compared with Co2019 students, who received the modular format (proportion difference: 0.42; P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.21–0.63]). Co2018 students were more likely than Co2019 students to stop attending because their time was better utilized another way (proportion difference: 0.22; P = 0.054, 95% CI [-0.003 to 0.45]). Conclusions: Students preferred the session length and timing of the modular format. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach.","PeriodicalId":91358,"journal":{"name":"Medical student research journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Student Satisfaction with Traditional and Modular Group Peer-Tutoring Session\",\"authors\":\"J. Cross, Rodney L. Nyland, Sarah Lerchenfeldt\",\"doi\":\"10.15404/MSRJ/07.2019.174\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Our allopathic medical school has utilized a peer-tutoring program since inception in 2011, where second-year medical students teach first-year students in 2-h lecture-style review sessions. In 2015, an alternative format was implemented using four, repeating 30-min modules. This study was designed to compare student satisfaction with both approaches. Methods: An online survey was emailed to students graduating in 2018 (n = 97) and 2019 (n = 127). Results: A total of 72 (32.6%) responding students were included in the study, 35 from the class of 2018 (Co2018) and 37 from the class of 2019 (Co2019). Fewer Co2018 students, who received traditional instruction, were ‘very satisfied with the session timing’ compared with Co2019 students, who received the modular format (proportion difference: 0.42; P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.21–0.63]). Co2018 students were more likely than Co2019 students to stop attending because their time was better utilized another way (proportion difference: 0.22; P = 0.054, 95% CI [-0.003 to 0.45]). Conclusions: Students preferred the session length and timing of the modular format. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91358,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical student research journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical student research journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15404/MSRJ/07.2019.174\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical student research journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15404/MSRJ/07.2019.174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们的对抗疗法医学院自2011年成立以来一直采用同伴辅导计划,由二年级的医学生以2小时的讲座式复习课程教一年级的学生。2015年,另一种形式采用了四个重复的30分钟模块。本研究旨在比较两种方法的学生满意度。方法:通过电子邮件对2018年(97名)和2019年(127名)毕业的学生进行在线调查。结果:共有72名(32.6%)学生参与了研究,其中35名来自2018级(Co2018), 37名来自2019级(Co2019)。与接受模块化教学的2019年学生相比,接受传统教学的2018年学生“对教学时间非常满意”(比例差:0.42;P < 0.001, 95%可信区间[CI][0.21-0.63])。Co2018的学生比Co2019的学生更有可能停止上学,因为他们的时间可以更好地利用在其他方面(比例差异:0.22;P = 0.054, 95% CI[-0.003 ~ 0.45])。结论:学生更喜欢模块格式的会话长度和时间。未来的研究有必要评估这种方法的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Student Satisfaction with Traditional and Modular Group Peer-Tutoring Session
Background: Our allopathic medical school has utilized a peer-tutoring program since inception in 2011, where second-year medical students teach first-year students in 2-h lecture-style review sessions. In 2015, an alternative format was implemented using four, repeating 30-min modules. This study was designed to compare student satisfaction with both approaches. Methods: An online survey was emailed to students graduating in 2018 (n = 97) and 2019 (n = 127). Results: A total of 72 (32.6%) responding students were included in the study, 35 from the class of 2018 (Co2018) and 37 from the class of 2019 (Co2019). Fewer Co2018 students, who received traditional instruction, were ‘very satisfied with the session timing’ compared with Co2019 students, who received the modular format (proportion difference: 0.42; P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.21–0.63]). Co2018 students were more likely than Co2019 students to stop attending because their time was better utilized another way (proportion difference: 0.22; P = 0.054, 95% CI [-0.003 to 0.45]). Conclusions: Students preferred the session length and timing of the modular format. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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