Premium
EXPERT – EXercise for PEer Led Review and Teaching
Author(s) -
Pizzimenti Marc A.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.2018.32.1_supplement.633.5
Subject(s) - session (web analytics) , likert scale , set (abstract data type) , medical education , mathematics education , teaching method , round table , psychology , computer science , medicine , world wide web , developmental psychology , programming language
Organizing a formalized review session for students prior to an exam, particularly for a lab‐based course, often presents challenges to time, content, and opportunities for learning. Here we present a focused and efficient approach to organizing student participation for a laboratory examination review session using peer‐teaching to provide detailed overviews of concepts. In this exercise, each student group (e.g., 4 students) prepares for the activity by becoming an ‘expert’ for an assigned region of anatomy or a set of anatomical concepts. Students prepare for the activity by working through learning issues and/or clearly identifying anatomical structures on cadaveric donors in the lab. Through independent and group preparation, each group member contributes to and offers strategies on how the teaching of the region/concept will be presented. The general outline of the session divides the groups so that for the first round, half of the students are teaching, while the other half are learning by visiting other groups. Students that participate as ‘experts' remain at their table/station and repeat the topic every 8 minutes, as student learners rotate to each station. For the second round, the role of each student reverses (Fig. 1). Students spent an average of 2.3 h (± 1.5) preparing for the activity, while the total time for the activity was approximately 1.5 h. Student feedback (5‐point Likert scale) on the activity (n=146) was very positive. Students thought that the exercise was well‐organized (4.5 ±0.4) and worthwhile (4.6 ±0.4). They reported that they were able to become an ‘expert’ (4.4 ±0.4) in their assigned area and that the activity allowed them to determine their areas of strength (4.5 ±0.4) and weakness (4.5 ±0.4). Moreover, students reported that they were able to demonstrate their knowledge (4.5 ± 0.4) and felt that their classmates at other tables were prepared for the activity (4.4 ± 0.4). Although this activity was applied to the laboratory setting it could be easily modified for other learning/teaching environments and courses. This session incorporates active learning strategies, social support for learning, and provides an efficient method for group interaction. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .