The Supplemental Instruction Project: peer-devised and delivered tutorials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether student devised and delivered supplemental instruction is beneficial and acceptable to first-year medical students. A student-run Supplemental Instruction Project (SIP) was developed and delivered by second-year medical students and offered free of charge to all first-year medical students at Memorial University of Newfoundland taking the Integrated Study of Disease I course in 1999 and again in 2000. Small-group tutorials focused on subject material that second-year medical students identified as 'difficult'. Five 60- to 90-minute sessions covering topics in cardiology, nephrology and respirology were offered. Student and tutor perceptions about the project were collected using anonymous questionnaires. Students were quizzed before and after each tutorial session. Post-tutorial quiz scores were significantly greater than pre-tutorial scores. Student and tutor perceptions of SIP were positive. It is concluded that the SIP is an acceptable, practical and effective method to supplement delivery of challenging material to first-year medical students.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".