really good stuff side teaching splits candidates into two groups consisting of those who are willing to dive straight in to take a history in front of their peers, and those who hide in the distance. Quiet candidates may have an understanding but feel overpowered by their more overbearing colleagues. Alternatively they may not have a thorough appreciation of the case in question and hence do not engage accordingly. What was tried? To help assist candidates who are primarily overpowered by more vocal students during real-life patient encounters and to ensure adequate exposure to history taking, we trialled a virtual patient encounter centred on back pain. We utilised this case as it can present in both acute and chronic settings and has numerous differentials that range from musculoskeletal to neurological contexts. The case involved interacting with a virtual patient through text-based means and focused on all aspects of history taking, from eliciting the presenting complaint to recording the past medical history, family history, social history and drug history, and included a systems review. Candidates were allowed to interact with the virtual patient at leisure through their own computer-based devices and in an environment they preferred. Following completion, candidates were asked to report their differentials and the most likely diagnosis, and to detail how they would proceed with investigations and management of the case. What lessons were learned? We utilised this virtual case to gather feedback from students on whether this approach to history taking would prove useful prior to real-life patient assessment. We also learned that it is often difficult for candidates to interact with such pathology in real life in the absence of exposure or patient agreement to interact with student doctors. We were able to demonstrate that the case proved useful in the aspects mentioned. We also gained information on how we might enhance the realism of the virtual patient interaction by using speech recognition technology, as well as by developing answer options to questions that offered a more appropriate response than: ‘Sorry, I do not understand the question.’ With consideration of these points, we are now able to refine the current virtual case before introducing it in a more formalised fashion. Correspondence: Neel Sharma, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, National University Hospital, Singapore 119228, Singapore. Tel: + 65 9174 5985; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1111/medu.12689
The future of conference posters: ‘hipster and geek!’ Kimberley Ivory, Claire Hooker & Julie Mooney-Somers What problems were addressed? Our abstract for a workshop at a national general practitioner (GP) conference was accepted . . . in the form of a poster! How could a workshop designed as a focus group, intended to provide a safe space in which GPs could discuss their personal concerns in relation to sexual health consultations, possibly become a poster? What was tried? We designed an interactive, datagenerating poster. The physical poster was mostly empty except for four trigger statements to which participants could respond by writing either on the poster or on Post-it notes. These comments in turn would prompt others and thus generate the poster content during the conference. To provide multiple ways to join the conversation, our poster employed two other tools: participants could connect with an electronic survey via a QR (quick response) code, or through Twitter links, or join a conversation on Twitter. We opened a separate Twitter account and chose the hashtag #hardconvos. Tweets advertised the poster, and comments from the poster were tweeted during the conference. Tweets containing the hashtag #hardconvos were collected as data. Although others have mined Twitter for tweets with specific content, this appears to be the first attempt to generate qualitative research data via Twitter. We received ethics approval and provided a participant information sheet at the poster and online. What lessons were learned? Posters often seem to represent the poor cousins at conferences and this was no exception: our poster was not included in either the conference programme or the conference app; the abstract was not published, and there was no board. The poster number we promoted in tweets was non-existent. Although a space was found, participants who did not use Twitter were largely unaware of our project. Nonetheless, 339 people visited the electronic survey (12 followed a tweeted link), but only four completed it. There were six written responses on the poster. Our Twitter followers increased from 34 to 55 during the conference. The 24 tweets sent by us containing #hardconvos were seen 1307 times and generated 53 engagements (clicks, retweets, etc.), but no replies or discussion. There were four re-tweets about the poster and two participants sent their own tweets using the #hardconvos hashtag.
ª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2015; 49: 513–541
529
really good stuff Those who participated provided interesting insights. Had we collected more data, we would have had three datasets and the opportunity to consider whether the collection process influenced each set and whether similar themes emerged. We would not hesitate to try this method again. Several participants commented on the innovation. The use of social media as tools is emerging rapidly in medicine and several conference sessions were devoted to the issue. This method allows researchers to engage with participants in ways that circumvent the static nature of posters yet still collect data with consent. We considered the ethics of using Twitter to generate research data, but the lack of anonymity may have been the major deterrent to people engaging in this sensitive topic of GPs’ personal concerns in sexual health consultations. One participant tweeted: ‘Visiting @xxx’s interactive #hardconvos poster at #[CONFERENCE] – postits and online; hipster and geek!. . . You may have hit on the future of academic posters there.’
Correspondence: Kimberley Ivory, Sydney School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building (A27), University of Sydney, Camperdown, 2006, New South Wales, Australia. Tel: 00 61 2 9036 7241; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1111/medu.12711
Medical student lecture attendance versus iTunes U Suvam Paul, Martin Pusic & Colleen Gillespie What problems were addressed? Medical student attendance at lectures has become optional at many medical schools now that lecture capture systems are widely available. Students may not feel compelled to attend lectures as they can view content using digital download options. The effect of medical students’ lecture attendance choices on their learning outcomes is not well understood. In particular, are learning outcomes adversely affected by choice of modality in lecture material acquisition? What was tried? We assessed whether there is a relationship between a student’s choice of the modality by which he or she acquires lecture material and subsequent examination scores in pre-clerkship medical knowledge courses. We developed a measure of learning preference, using routine end-of-module surveys, in which we asked students questions about their patterns of attending lectures or using iTunes U downloads or
530
both to capture lecture content in courses. We then compared learning outcomes (knowledge scores) by pattern of lecture attendance. We collected medical knowledge examination data from a single class cohort at two points, 12 months apart, during, respectively, modules on host defence (HD) and neuroscience (NS). Students’ self-reported data on patterns of acquiring lecture content were sourced from end-of-module surveys about the quality of instruction students had received. Response rates were 83% (HD) and 71% (NS). Of the class of 160 students, nine did not provide consent to participate in this research. Of the remaining 151 students, 82 provided data for the HD module and 100 provided data for the NS module; 62 students provided data for both the HD and NS modules. We conducted univariate analyses and examined a factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to take clustering into account in order to evaluate examination outcomes by choice of lecture material acquisition modality. What lessons were learned? We learned that medical students do indeed vary considerably in terms of how they access lecture content: 20% of the class used mainly digital resources, and 80% relied on more traditional ‘in-person’ lecture attendance. Lecture attendance choices were not significantly related to subsequent examination scores, based on the univariate analyses conducted. A two-way ANOVA was conducted in which neither lecture modality (F = 0.39) nor course (F = 1.13), nor their interaction (F = 0.06), were statistically significant. Students demonstrated the ability to acquire and apply lecture material regardless of the modality they used to capture content. Students have similar levels of examination performance, with high means and low variance on examination scores. Medical students may have individualised learning experiences, but they appear to attain the same standardised outcomes. There are a number of limitations to our findings. These results are based on student-reported data rather than objective measures of usage such as lecture swipe-ins or login audit logs for online usage. Although almost all students consented to research participation, a limited number of students completed the surveys on lecture materials acquisition modality. Further research into students’ choices of online or in-person attendance modalities should explore the variables influencing choices, including degree of experience as a medical student, content of materials, and perceived level of difficulty of the learning materials.
ª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2015; 49: 513–541
Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
The future of conference posters: ‘hipster and geek!’ Kimberley Ivory, Claire Hooker & Julie Mooney-Somers What problems were addressed? Our abstract for a workshop at a national general practitioner (GP) conference was accepted . . . in the form of a poster! How could a workshop designed as a focus group, intended to provide a safe space in which GPs could discuss their personal concerns in relation to sexual health consultations, possibly become a poster? What was tried? We designed an interactive, datagenerating poster. The physical poster was mostly empty except for four trigger statements to which participants could respond by writing either on the poster or on Post-it notes. These comments in turn would prompt others and thus generate the poster content during the conference. To provide multiple ways to join the conversation, our poster employed two other tools: participants could connect with an electronic survey via a QR (quick response) code, or through Twitter links, or join a conversation on Twitter. We opened a separate Twitter account and chose the hashtag #hardconvos. Tweets advertised the poster, and comments from the poster were tweeted during the conference. Tweets containing the hashtag #hardconvos were collected as data. Although others have mined Twitter for tweets with specific content, this appears to be the first attempt to generate qualitative research data via Twitter. We received ethics approval and provided a participant information sheet at the poster and online. What lessons were learned? Posters often seem to represent the poor cousins at conferences and this was no exception: our poster was not included in either the conference programme or the conference app; the abstract was not published, and there was no board. The poster number we promoted in tweets was non-existent. Although a space was found, participants who did not use Twitter were largely unaware of our project. Nonetheless, 339 people visited the electronic survey (12 followed a tweeted link), but only four completed it. There were six written responses on the poster. Our Twitter followers increased from 34 to 55 during the conference. The 24 tweets sent by us containing #hardconvos were seen 1307 times and generated 53 engagements (clicks, retweets, etc.), but no replies or discussion. There were four re-tweets about the poster and two participants sent their own tweets using the #hardconvos hashtag.
ª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2015; 49: 513–541
529
really good stuff Those who participated provided interesting insights. Had we collected more data, we would have had three datasets and the opportunity to consider whether the collection process influenced each set and whether similar themes emerged. We would not hesitate to try this method again. Several participants commented on the innovation. The use of social media as tools is emerging rapidly in medicine and several conference sessions were devoted to the issue. This method allows researchers to engage with participants in ways that circumvent the static nature of posters yet still collect data with consent. We considered the ethics of using Twitter to generate research data, but the lack of anonymity may have been the major deterrent to people engaging in this sensitive topic of GPs’ personal concerns in sexual health consultations. One participant tweeted: ‘Visiting @xxx’s interactive #hardconvos poster at #[CONFERENCE] – postits and online; hipster and geek!. . . You may have hit on the future of academic posters there.’
Correspondence: Kimberley Ivory, Sydney School of Public Health, Edward Ford Building (A27), University of Sydney, Camperdown, 2006, New South Wales, Australia. Tel: 00 61 2 9036 7241; E-mail: [email protected] doi: 10.1111/medu.12711
Medical student lecture attendance versus iTunes U Suvam Paul, Martin Pusic & Colleen Gillespie What problems were addressed? Medical student attendance at lectures has become optional at many medical schools now that lecture capture systems are widely available. Students may not feel compelled to attend lectures as they can view content using digital download options. The effect of medical students’ lecture attendance choices on their learning outcomes is not well understood. In particular, are learning outcomes adversely affected by choice of modality in lecture material acquisition? What was tried? We assessed whether there is a relationship between a student’s choice of the modality by which he or she acquires lecture material and subsequent examination scores in pre-clerkship medical knowledge courses. We developed a measure of learning preference, using routine end-of-module surveys, in which we asked students questions about their patterns of attending lectures or using iTunes U downloads or
530
both to capture lecture content in courses. We then compared learning outcomes (knowledge scores) by pattern of lecture attendance. We collected medical knowledge examination data from a single class cohort at two points, 12 months apart, during, respectively, modules on host defence (HD) and neuroscience (NS). Students’ self-reported data on patterns of acquiring lecture content were sourced from end-of-module surveys about the quality of instruction students had received. Response rates were 83% (HD) and 71% (NS). Of the class of 160 students, nine did not provide consent to participate in this research. Of the remaining 151 students, 82 provided data for the HD module and 100 provided data for the NS module; 62 students provided data for both the HD and NS modules. We conducted univariate analyses and examined a factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to take clustering into account in order to evaluate examination outcomes by choice of lecture material acquisition modality. What lessons were learned? We learned that medical students do indeed vary considerably in terms of how they access lecture content: 20% of the class used mainly digital resources, and 80% relied on more traditional ‘in-person’ lecture attendance. Lecture attendance choices were not significantly related to subsequent examination scores, based on the univariate analyses conducted. A two-way ANOVA was conducted in which neither lecture modality (F = 0.39) nor course (F = 1.13), nor their interaction (F = 0.06), were statistically significant. Students demonstrated the ability to acquire and apply lecture material regardless of the modality they used to capture content. Students have similar levels of examination performance, with high means and low variance on examination scores. Medical students may have individualised learning experiences, but they appear to attain the same standardised outcomes. There are a number of limitations to our findings. These results are based on student-reported data rather than objective measures of usage such as lecture swipe-ins or login audit logs for online usage. Although almost all students consented to research participation, a limited number of students completed the surveys on lecture materials acquisition modality. Further research into students’ choices of online or in-person attendance modalities should explore the variables influencing choices, including degree of experience as a medical student, content of materials, and perceived level of difficulty of the learning materials.
ª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. MEDICAL EDUCATION 2015; 49: 513–541
Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
