Board #117 - Research Abstract Peer Teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypothesis A resident’s first lumbar puncture (LP) often occurs in a high-stakes environment where patient management depends on its success. Unfortunately, most junior residents do not achieve the competency level required for this important skill. Simulation with deliberate practice may be an important instructional method to facilitate skill development in trainees, but is often restricted due to human resource limitations. If students could learn equally well from peer teaching (as compared to instructor led teaching) this could enable medical schools an opportunity to increase the pool of instructors and the amount of teaching it can provide. The main objectives of this pilot study were: 1) To determine if students taught LP skills by their peers perform as well on a simulated LP task trainer as students taught by experts; and 2) To determine if teaching peers results in improved performance of the student doing the teaching. Methods We conducted a block randomized trial comparing three groups of third year medical students’ LP skill acquisition at the Montreal Children’s Hospital. Students (n=60) were given two 30 minute sessions with the LP task trainer . Group 1 (control group, n=20) was initially taught via deliberate practice by an expert and then had 30 minutes of self-guided practice. Group 2 (student teachers, n=20) were similarly taught by an expert and then had 30 minutes to teach a peer. Group 3 (peer taught, n=20) was taught by group 2 and then given an additional 30 minutes of self-guided practice. All students had an equal amount of time with the task trainer. Assessments of students were conducted 4-6 weeks after training with a previously validated 15-point checklist by an assessor blinded to group allocation. The main outcome measure was the mean score on the 15-point checklist compared using independent sample t-tests. Results The mean score of students taught by an expert (i.e. group 1) was 11.9 (SD 2.2) and those taught by their peers (i.e. group 3) was 11.7 (SD 2.0); the difference between groups was not statistically significant (p=0.83). Moreover, the mean score of students who taught their peers (i.e. group 2) was 12.9 (SD 1.9); there was no statistically significant difference when compared to group 1 (p=0.13). Conclusion The students taught by their peers achieved the same degree of competency as students taught by experts. This could potentially provide medical schools with valuable new resources for teaching. We did not observe a benefit to the learner from, ‘teaching the skill’ to their peers as compared to practicing on their own, though the study may have been underpowered to detect a small difference. Disclosures None
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.233 | 0.041 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".