PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2747488

Active, small group learning with a large group in a lecture theatre: a practical example.

Abstract

Using a specific example within clinical biochemistry, I describe the structure and operation of a type of session which allows a large number of students in a lecture theatre to obtain some of the benefits of learning in small groups and from peers. After preparatory reading before the class, the students work in small self-selected groups on a number of problems or cases for 30-35 minutes of a 50-minute session. Each group must record on the blackboard its answers to key questions before the problems are discussed. The method is designed to highlight a small number of important concepts, to let students see the relevance of what they have learned, and to give the students practice at applying biochemistry to the solution of problems. The students have received the sessions well and I have been impressed with how well the students have functioned during their discussions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P L Schwartz. 1989. Active, small group learning with a large group in a lecture theatre: a practical example.. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421598909146279

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗