Premium
Steering Illusions of Competence: A near‐peer driven integrated approach to improving performance of at‐risk students in a gross anatomy course
Author(s) -
Salem Paul,
Schmelkin Leah,
Lachman Nirusha,
Pawlina Wojciech
Publication year - 2016
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.30.1_supplement.565.4
Subject(s) - formative assessment , medical education , competence (human resources) , curriculum , mentorship , psychology , class (philosophy) , medicine , mathematics education , pedagogy , computer science , social psychology , artificial intelligence
Studies suggest that students at‐risk are likely to display ‘low academic self‐concept, inadequate study skills, and a history of passive learning.’ However, integrated approaches to enhance student learning in anatomy courses are limited by the student's ability to direct their own learning. Mentorship by more senior medical students has a long tradition in the hidden medical curriculum. In the Department of Anatomy at Mayo Clinic, third year medical students enrolled in the teaching assistant program served as near‐peer mentors through a formalized program of peer education supported through collaborative efforts between the office of academic success and the anatomy teaching faculty. In a 7 week anatomy course, delivery of early intervention and monitoring of progress on performance based measures for at‐risk students are crucial to a positive final outcome. Formative feedback scores from audience response system (ARS) and weekly lab practical scores were used to identify students at risk. A total of n=7 students initially met criteria for being “at‐risk” with ARS and lab practical scores<70%. Following faculty initiated meeting, each student was paired with a near‐peer mentor to tailor study strategies to their individual needs. Student primary study strategies included repetitive reading of textbooks or class PowerPoints, with little to no extra time in the laboratory. Additional resources (web, suggested study material) were rarely accessed. Near peer mentoring highlighted use of recall practice using techniques to rethink concepts through self‐written questions, electronic material (flashcards, anatomy programs etc) re‐creation of mind maps, answering board‐style questions and verifying anatomy through dissection. Each student averaged a total of 3 hours of mentored time between tests (8 class days). The number of study hours per student varied between 2–6 hours per day. Preliminary objective data from formative feedback scores showed improvement for the mentored group of 7 students from 62% average on the 1st practical to 79% on the 2 nd practical with all students achieving ≥70%. Class average for Practical 1= 79% (SD =11%) Practical 2= 81% (SD= 8%). The mentored group's ARS average was 68% during the period up to the initial meetings and 56% from that point to the day after the 2 nd practical. The class averages over the same two periods were 76% and 65% respectively. While self‐directed learning is the overarching expectation for medical students, knowing how to direct their learning poses a significant challenge when working with difficult anatomical concepts and volume for the first time. Near peer mentors form a line of support in helping students understand how they can best re‐direct their effort towards successful outcomes.