Student-created Independent Learning Modules

Rationale and Objectives

Modern radiology clerkships require a rigorous, in-depth curriculum usually involving a variety of educational activities. With increasingly constrained faculty time and departmental resources, finding activities that are easy to implement and of high educational value can be a challenge.

Materials and Methods

We introduced a novel educational activity to our radiology clerkship in which students created independent learning modules (ILMs) that were reviewed by their classmates. Feedback surveys were used to assess the activity and guide a revision to the program. Feedback surveys after the revision were used to assess the overall perceived value of the program.

Results

Twenty-seven students in two successive sessions of our elective radiology clerkship completed the ILM activity and provided feedback. Sixty-four students in five subsequent sessions completed a modified version of the activity and provided feedback. Students in this final group rated the activity’s educational value at 8.3/10, with most describing both the creation and reviewing of the ILMs as similarly or more educationally valuable than lectures (41 of 64 [64%], 48 of 64 [75%], respectively). Students indicated the target ILM length of 15 minutes was “about right” (61 of 64 [95%]), and that the overall proportion of the course dedicated to the ILM activity was appropriate (49 of 64 [77%]).

Conclusions

A novel student-created ILM activity was highly reviewed by radiology elective students, both with regard to the educational value of creating and taking the ILMs. Clerkship directors wishing to supplement their curricula with an easy-to-implement high-value activity may consider adding a student-created ILM assignment.

The need for high-quality, engaging, and rigorous radiology clerkships has never been greater.

First, students demand it. Modern medical students come to medical school with extensive experience with digital resources . While in the preclinical years of medical school, students are increasingly exposed to nonlecture learning formats, including e-learning, problem-based learning sessions, small-group sessions, and workshop style formats .

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Materials and methods

Assessing the Need

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

The “Student-Created Independent Learning Modules” Solution

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Implementing the “Student-Created ILM” Activity

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Activity Assessment

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Table 1

Student Feedback Regarding the First and Second Iterations of the Student-created ILM Activity

Question Answer Options First Iteration ( N = 27) Second Iteration ( N = 64)P value How educationally useful was MAKING your online module? 1 = very not useful 7.5 (6–9) 8.3 (8–9) .17 10 = very useful Hour for hour, was MAKING your online module less, similar, or more educationally useful than lectures? Less 15 (55) 23 (36) .24 Similar 8 (30) 26 (41) More 4 (15) 15 (23) How educationally useful was TAKING all of the online modules? 1 = very not useful 6.9 (6–8) 8.3 (8–9) .004 10 = very useful Hour for hour, was TAKING the other online modules less, similar, or more educationally useful than lectures? Less 10 (37) 16 (25) .51 Similar 11 (41) 30 (47) More 6 (22) 18 (28) Was a target length of the modules too short, about right, or too long for an online module such as this? Too little time 0 (0) 1 (2) <.001 About right 16 (59) 59 (92) Too much time 11 (41) 4 (6) Was the amount of time that was dedicated to completing your classmate’s modules not enough, about right, or too much time? Too little time 1 (4) 1 (2) <.001 About right 16 (59) 61 (95) Too much time 10 (37) 2 (3) If you could change the course, would you decrease, keep the same, or increase the amount of time dedicated to the online module educational activity? (Assume that the overall amount of work in the course stayed the same, i.e. spending more or less time on the modules would results in fewer or more other assignments) Decrease 12 (44) 12 (19) .04 Keep the same 15 (56) 49 (77) Increase 0 (0) 3 (5)

Data are presented as mean (interquartile range) or n (%).

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Statistical Analysis

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Results

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Discussion

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Conclusions

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Appendix

Free text answers

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Iteration 1

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Iteration 2

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Example ILM

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

References

1. Means B., Roschelle J.: An overview of technology and learning.Peterson P.Baker E.McGaw B.International Encyclopedia of Education.2010.ElsevierOxford, UK:pp. 1-10.
2. Lee S.W., Tsai C.: Students’ perceptions of collaboration, self-regulated learning, and information seeking in the context of Internet-based learning and traditional learning. Comput Hum Behav 2011; 27: pp. 905-914.
3. Fu T., Tien F.F.: The correlates of the digital divide and their impact on college student learning. Comput Educ 2008; 50: pp. 421-436.
4. Khogali S.E., Davies D.A., Donnan P.T., et. al.: Integration of e-learning resources into a medical school curriculum. Med Teach 2011; 33: pp. 311-318.
5. Ruiz J.G., Mintzer M.J., Leipzig R.M.: The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med 2006; 81: pp. 207-212.
6. Solomon D.J., Ferenchick G.S., Laird-Fick H.S., et. al.: A randomized trial comparing digital and live lecture formats. BMC Med Educ 2004; 29: pp. 27.
7. Kinkade S.: A snapshot of the status of problem-based learning in U.S. medical schools, 2003–04. Acad Med 2005; 80: pp. 300-301.
8. Chan W.P., Hsu C.Y., Hong C.Y.: Innovative “Case-Based Integrated Teaching” in an undergraduate medical curriculum: development and teachers’ and students’ responses. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2008; 37: pp. 952-956.
9. Gunderman R.B., Gasparis P.T., Rahman T.: Educating medical students about radiologists’ contributions to patient care. Acad Radiol 2012; 19: pp. 908-909.
10. Chien A.T., Rosenthal M.B.: Medicare’s physician value-based payment modifier—will the tectonic shift create waves?. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: pp. 2076-2078.
11. Lee C.I., Enzmann D.R.: Measuring radiology’s value in time saved. J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9: pp. 713-717.
12. Huang B.K., Lubner M., Resnik C.S.: Balancing clinical service and education in the radiology residency. Acad Radiol 2009; 16: pp. 1161-1165.
13. Peets A.D., Coderre S., Wright B., et. al.: Involvement in teaching improves learning in medical students: a randomized cross-over study. BMC Med Educ 2009; 9: pp. 55.
14. Sobral D.T.: Cross-year peer tutoring experience in a medical school: conditions and outcomes for student tutors. Med Educ 2002; 36: pp. 1064-1070.
15. Issa N., Mayer R.E., Schuller M., et. al.: Teaching for understanding in medical classrooms using multimedia design principles. Med Educ 2013; 47: pp. 388-396.
16. Gregory A., Walker I., McLaughlin K., et. al.: Both preparing to teach and teaching positively impact learning outcomes for peer teachers. Med Teach 2011; 33: pp. e417-e422.
17. Dandavino M., Snell L., Wiseman J.: Why medical students should learn how to teach. Med Teach 2007; 29: pp. 558-565.
18. Cornwall M.: Students as teachers: peer teaching in higher education. Technical report.1979.Centrum voor Onderzoek van Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs, University of Amsterdam, Heerlenpp. 7906-8001.
19. Naeger D.M., Conrad M., Nguyen J., et. al.: Students teaching students: evaluation of a “near-peer” teaching experience. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: pp. 1177-1182.
20. Nelson A.J., Nelson S.V., Linn A.M., et. al.: Tomorrow’s educators … today? Implementing near-peer teaching for medical students. Med Teach 2012; 35: pp. 156-159.
21. Ten Cate O., Durning S.: Peer teaching in medical education: twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Med Teach 2007; 29: pp. 591-599.
22. Lockspeiser Tm, O’Sullivan P., Teherani A., et. al.: Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence. Adv health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008; 13: pp. 361-372.
23. Ferguson K.J., Kreiter C.D.: Assessing the relationship between peer and facilitator evaluations in case-based learning. Med Educ 2007; 41: pp. 906-908.
24. CM Straus, EM Webb, K Kondo, AW Phillips, DM Naeger, C Carrico, W Herring, J Neutze, R Haines, G Dodd. Medical imaging education: a summary and recommendations resulting from a National Survey of Medical School and Radiology Department Leadership. Submitted to J Am Coll Radiol.
25. Gunderman R.B., Seltman T.A.: Engaging medical students as coeducators. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: pp. 1052-1053.
26. Slanetz P.J., Kung J., Eisenberg R.L.: Teaching radiology in the millennial era. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: pp. 387-389.
27. O’Tuathaigh C.M., Duggan E., Khashan A.S., et. al.: Selection of student-selected component [SSCs] modules across the medical undergraduate curriculum: relationship with motivational factors. Med Teach 2012; 34: pp. 813-820.
28. Richardson J.: Factors that influence first year medical students’ choice of student selected component. Med Teach 2009; 31: pp. e418-e424.
29. Halsted M.J., Perry L.A., Perry D.J., et. al.: Development of an interactive model for teaching emergency pediatric radiography: preliminary report. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2: pp. 701-703.
30. Gutmark R., Halsted M.J., Perry L., et. al.: Use of computer databases to reduce radiograph reading errors. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4: pp. 65-68.
31. Lieberman G., Abramson R., Volkan K., et. al.: Tutor versus computer: a prospective comparison of interactive tutorial and computer-assisted instruction in radiology education. Acad Radiol 2002; 9: pp. 40-49.
32. Leong S., Mc Laughlin P., O’Connor O.J., et. al.: An assessment of the feasibility and effectiveness of an e-learning module in delivering a curriculum in radiation protection to undergraduate medical students. J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9: pp. 203-209.
33. Khalil M.K., Nelson L.D., Kibble J.D.: The use of self-learning modules to facilitate learning of basic science concepts in an integrated medical curriculum. Anat Sci Educ 2010; 3: pp. 219-226.
34. Khalil M.K., Lamar C.H., Johnson T.E.: Using computer-based interactive imagery strategies for designing instructional anatomy programs. Clin Anat 2005; 18: pp. 68-76.
35. Gomersall C.D., Lam P., Joynt G.M.: Electronic interactive learning to supplement acute care teaching. Med Educ 2010; 44: pp. 526.
36. Gjerde C.L., Xakellis G.C., Schuldt S.S.: Medical student evaluation of self-selected learning modules. Fam Med 1993; 25: pp. 452-455.

Student-created Independent Learning Modules

Rationale and Objectives

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Materials and methods

Assessing the Need

The “Student-Created Independent Learning Modules” Solution

Implementing the “Student-Created ILM” Activity

Activity Assessment

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Appendix

Free text answers

Iteration 1

Iteration 2

Example ILM

References

Further Reading

24/7/365 In-House Radiologist Coverage

A Tissue Phantom Model for Training Residents in Ultrasound-guided Liver Biopsy

Audience Response Techniques for 21st Century Radiology Education