Randomised controlled monocentric trial to compare the impact of using professional actors or peers for communication training in a competency-based inverted biochemistry classroom in preclinical medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveIn medical education, biochemistry topics are usually knowledge based, and students often are unaware of their clinical relevance. To improve students’ awareness of the relevance, we integrated communication skills training into biochemistry education. No studies before have examined the difference between peer and standardised patient (SP) role plays where students explain the biochemical background of a disease in patient-centred language. Therefore, we evaluated whether students’ self-perceived competency in Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists (CanMEDS) roles and their opinion of the quality of role play differ if the layperson is played by peers or SPs.MethodsWe randomly assigned medical students in a preclinical semester to one of the two groups. The groups used predefined scripts to role play a physician–parent consultation with either a peer (peer group) or an SP (SP group) in the parent role. Students then assessed the activity’s effects on their competency in CanMEDS roles and motivation and the relevance of the role play. To determine whether students achieved biochemistry learning goals, we evaluated results of a biochemistry exam.ResultsStudents’ self-perceived competency improved in both groups. The SP group rated their competency in the roles ‘Scholar’ and ‘Professional’ significantly higher than the peer group did. The peer group rated their competency in the role of ‘Medical Expert’ significantly higher if they played the role of the parent rather than physician or observer. The SP group agreed more that they were motivated by the role play and wanted to receive more role play-based teaching. The SP group perceived the role play as being realistic and rated the feedback discussion as more beneficial. The examination results were the same in both groups.ConclusionWe showed that role plays in a biochemistry seminar improve students’ self-perceived competency. The use of SPs has some advantages, such as being more realistic.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
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".