1. Evaluation of a hybrid peer-teaching method for undergraduate
medical microbiology
Peter Daley, MD; Amanda Clarke BSc; Jacinta Reddigan, MSc; Stephen Shorlin, PhD
Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
INTRODUCTION
RESULTS
Student opinions of the way the course was taught
improved as the course progressed (Table 2).
Traditional lectures discourage long-term memory, or true understanding of medical microbiology.
Memorial University Course Evaluation Data
However, students still did not feel the course format improved their learning or understanding of the course material
Students indicated they did not agree the course was taught in an effective manner when organized in a case-based format. (Table 1).
Samples of Comments from the Survey
Universities have begun studying
or implementing more active
learning styles other than traditional lectures in many courses and disciplines.
Table 1. Microbiology course evaluation data
The Good
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree)
2010/2011
(N = 40)
Lecture
2011/2012
( N = 37)
Case-based
Clear learning objectives
4.03
3.84
Course activities related to objectives
4.22
4.05
Effective course organization
4.10
2.60*
Appropriate workload
4.30
3.10*
I gained a good understanding of the concepts and principles
3.40*
Clinically relevant
4.70
4.20*
Overall
3.50*
“I liked how there was some interaction with peers and discussion.” (12 comments)
PURPOSE
“I loved that we had experts facilitating the peer teaching sessions.” (10 comments)
To evaluate the effectiveness of a newly implemented teaching strategy which integrates both peer-teaching and case-based learning into the first year microbiology course for medical students at Memorial University.
The Bad
“We did not know what was expected of us as peer teachers.” (13 comments)
METHODS
“Group sizes were too large and sufficient time was not allotted to discuss cases.” ( 8 comments)
Course Design
* = P <0.05
CONCLUSIONS
Four peer teachers S
10 hours lecture
These ratings were significantly lower than the ratings of the course when it was taught mainly through lectures (Table 1).
Compared to lecture-based teaching the previous year, students were less satisfied and less interested in the course as a whole.
Throughout course:
Increased engagement/satisfaction
Students felt the depth of detail required for peer teaching unclear/ Lack of trust in peer teaching
Students prefer expert lecture teaching, dislike uncertainty in expectations
19 hours case-based
discussions
Pre/Post Satisfaction Survey
Table 2. Pre and Post Course Comparison
Class broken up into groups of 16
Clinical cases had 4 objectives each
4 students to teach 4 objectives ; 2 cases were taught each hour of class
5 minute presentation on each objective under instructor supervision
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree)
PRE SURVEY
(N = 41)
POST SURVEY
I prefer teamwork to individual work
2.73
2.98
I am more engaged in group discussion than a lecture
2.85
3.27*
I learn best when info is presented by a peer
1.46
1.66
I learn best when information is presented by someone I see as an expert
4.51
4.61
The teaching method will/did improve my learning of microbiology material, compared to a lecture based course.
1.49
2.20*
Methods of teaching will be/was helpful in my understanding of the course material
1.59
2.22*
Preceptor
Evaluation of New Course Format
Changes Made to Microbiology 2013
Course evaluations for the year of this teaching strategy (2011/12) were compared to those from 2010/11 when it was lecture based (N=37 and 40).
19 hours lecture, 10 hours case-based
Case-based assessed using post-test instead of preceptor mark
Four students in group, one faculty for four groups
All students responsible for all objectives
An anonymous satisfaction survey was administered before and after the 2011/12 course and differences in opinions were examined. (41/65 surveys returned)
* = P <0.05