To observe or not to observe peers when learning physical examination skills; that is the question
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Learning physical examination skills is an essential element of medical education. Teaching strategies include practicing the skills either alone or in-group. It is unclear whether students benefit more from training these skills individually or in a group, as the latter allows them to observing their peers. The present study, conducted in a naturalistic setting, investigated the effects of peer observation on mastering psychomotor skills necessary for physical examination. METHODS: The study included 185 2nd-year medical students, participating in a regular head-to-toe physical examination learning activity. Students were assigned either to a single-student condition (n = 65), in which participants practiced alone with a patient instructor, or to a multiple-student condition (n = 120), in which participants practiced in triads under patient instructor supervision. The students subsequently carried out a complete examination that was videotaped and subsequently evaluated. Student's performance was used as a measure of learning. RESULTS: Students in the multiple-student condition learned more than those who practiced alone (81% vs 76%, p < 0.004). This result possibly derived from a positive effect of observing peers; students who had the possibility to observe a peer (the second and third students in the groups) performed better than students who did not have this possibility (84% vs 76%, p <. 001). There was no advantage of observing more than one peer (83.7% vs 84.1%, p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The opportunity to observe a peer during practice seemed to improve the acquisition of physical examination skills. By using small groups instead of individual training to teach physical examination skills, health sciences educational programs may provide students with opportunities to improve their performance by learning from their peers through modelling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".