Teaching and learning in medicine · 2007
Formal peer-teaching in medical school improves academic performance: the MUSC supplemental instructor program.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wong Jeffrey G, Waldrep Thomas D, Smith Thomas G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Formal systems of peer teaching are common in many advanced-degree graduate school programs but are less prevalent in medical schools. In 1997, The Medical University of South Carolina's Center for Academic Excellence created a Supplemental Instructor (SI) program in which interested upper-level medical students are hired to teach a small group of junior peers, primarily in basic science topics.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine if participation as an SI leader resulted inmeasurable academic improvement for those students. This study examined if participation as a teacher in the SI program (SI leader) resulted in measurable academic improvement for those students.
METHODS: Admission characteristics (grade point average [GPA], Medical College Aptitude Test score, age, year of enrollment, and gender) of all SI leaders were compiled from the academic years 1996-2001. A second cohort of students, who shared the first group's admission characteristics but who chose not to teach as SIs, was identified as a comparison control group. Outcome measures included United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and 2 scores and final medical school GPA. Paired student two-tailed t -test statistics compared group means on all outcome variables.
RESULTS: There were 199 SI leaders with non-SI students matched controls studied. There were no significant differences upon admission between the two groups; however, the SI leader group had significantly higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores and final medical school GPA compared to the non-SI group.
CONCLUSIONS: The activity of formal peer-teaching was beneficial to the SI leaders' own academic success as measured by GPA and USMLE test scores.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine if participation as an SI leader resulted inmeasurable academic improvement for those students. This study examined if participation as a teacher in the SI program (SI leader) resulted in measurable academic improvement for those students.
METHODS: Admission characteristics (grade point average [GPA], Medical College Aptitude Test score, age, year of enrollment, and gender) of all SI leaders were compiled from the academic years 1996-2001. A second cohort of students, who shared the first group's admission characteristics but who chose not to teach as SIs, was identified as a comparison control group. Outcome measures included United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and 2 scores and final medical school GPA. Paired student two-tailed t -test statistics compared group means on all outcome variables.
RESULTS: There were 199 SI leaders with non-SI students matched controls studied. There were no significant differences upon admission between the two groups; however, the SI leader group had significantly higher USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores and final medical school GPA compared to the non-SI group.
CONCLUSIONS: The activity of formal peer-teaching was beneficial to the SI leaders' own academic success as measured by GPA and USMLE test scores.