These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Changing the student clerkship from traditional lectures to small group case-based sessions benefits the student and the faculty.
    Author: Cendan JC, Silver M, Ben-David K.
    Journal: J Surg Educ; 2011; 68(2):117-20. PubMed ID: 21338967.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Attempts to improve the third year surgery clerkship led to the implementation of faculty-led small group teaching instead of large group lecture-style dissemination of the general surgical curriculum. The intent was to facilitate better faculty-to-student relationships, provide more favorable balance between classroom and clinical surgery, and enhance overall surgical education. METHODS: Didactic student sessions were reduced from 33 lectures to 8 small group sessions and surgical specialty lectures. A case-based surgical curriculum was utilized and students were organized into small groups led by assigned faculty members. A uniform schedule of topics was prearranged to ensure continuity and avoid duplication of material. The National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) surgery subject examination raw score and percentile rank assignments were analyzed for 1 medical graduating class taught using the traditional method and compared with the subsequent class taught in small groups. A survey was administered to assess student and faculty regarding the new format. RESULTS: Average NBME percentile rank score for students educated in small groups versus lecture-only groups improved significantly (61.2 vs 55.9, p = 0.04, Student t test). The students reported increased time spent preparing for small group over lecture and more satisfaction with the small group teaching environment. Faculty members reported an increase in time needed to deliver the session but otherwise gave strong positive feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns that student performance on standardized testing would suffer from the proposed change were not substantiated as performance on NBME subject examinations actually improved. Additional preparation time, method preference, favorable balance of classroom to clinical exposure, and direct interactions with faculty may be responsible for the observed increase in NBME examination percentile scores. Faculty members were overwhelmingly in favor of the new model and the additional direct contact with students may prove beneficial in junior faculty promotion and career development.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]