Cargando…

A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching

BACKGROUND: Effective teaching requires an understanding of both what (content knowledge) and how (process knowledge) to teach. While previous studies involving medical students have compared preceptors with greater or lesser content knowledge, it is unclear whether process expertise can compensate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peets, Adam D, Cooke, Lara, Wright, Bruce, Coderre, Sylvain, McLaughlin, Kevin
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2966459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20946674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-70
_version_ 1782189587395772416
author Peets, Adam D
Cooke, Lara
Wright, Bruce
Coderre, Sylvain
McLaughlin, Kevin
author_facet Peets, Adam D
Cooke, Lara
Wright, Bruce
Coderre, Sylvain
McLaughlin, Kevin
author_sort Peets, Adam D
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Effective teaching requires an understanding of both what (content knowledge) and how (process knowledge) to teach. While previous studies involving medical students have compared preceptors with greater or lesser content knowledge, it is unclear whether process expertise can compensate for deficient content expertise. Therefore, the objective of our study was to compare the effect of preceptors with process expertise to those with content expertise on medical students' learning outcomes in a structured small group environment. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-one first year medical students were randomized to 11 groups for the small group component of the Cardiovascular-Respiratory course at the University of Calgary. Each group was then block randomized to one of three streams for the entire course: tutoring exclusively by physicians with content expertise (n = 5), tutoring exclusively by physicians with process expertise (n = 3), and tutoring by content experts for 11 sessions and process experts for 10 sessions (n = 3). After each of the 21 small group sessions, students evaluated their preceptors' teaching with a standardized instrument. Students' knowledge acquisition was assessed by an end-of-course multiple choice (EOC-MCQ) examination. RESULTS: Students rated the process experts significantly higher on each of the instrument's 15 items, including the overall rating. Students' mean score (±SD) on the EOC-MCQ exam was 76.1% (8.1) for groups taught by content experts, 78.2% (7.8) for the combination group and 79.5% (9.2) for process expert groups (p = 0.11). By linear regression student performance was higher if they had been taught by process experts (regression coefficient 2.7 [0.1, 5.4], p < .05), but not content experts (p = .09). CONCLUSIONS: When preceptors are physicians, content expertise is not a prerequisite to teach first year medical students within a structured small group environment; preceptors with process expertise result in at least equivalent, if not superior, student outcomes in this setting.
format Text
id pubmed-2966459
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29664592010-10-30 A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching Peets, Adam D Cooke, Lara Wright, Bruce Coderre, Sylvain McLaughlin, Kevin BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Effective teaching requires an understanding of both what (content knowledge) and how (process knowledge) to teach. While previous studies involving medical students have compared preceptors with greater or lesser content knowledge, it is unclear whether process expertise can compensate for deficient content expertise. Therefore, the objective of our study was to compare the effect of preceptors with process expertise to those with content expertise on medical students' learning outcomes in a structured small group environment. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-one first year medical students were randomized to 11 groups for the small group component of the Cardiovascular-Respiratory course at the University of Calgary. Each group was then block randomized to one of three streams for the entire course: tutoring exclusively by physicians with content expertise (n = 5), tutoring exclusively by physicians with process expertise (n = 3), and tutoring by content experts for 11 sessions and process experts for 10 sessions (n = 3). After each of the 21 small group sessions, students evaluated their preceptors' teaching with a standardized instrument. Students' knowledge acquisition was assessed by an end-of-course multiple choice (EOC-MCQ) examination. RESULTS: Students rated the process experts significantly higher on each of the instrument's 15 items, including the overall rating. Students' mean score (±SD) on the EOC-MCQ exam was 76.1% (8.1) for groups taught by content experts, 78.2% (7.8) for the combination group and 79.5% (9.2) for process expert groups (p = 0.11). By linear regression student performance was higher if they had been taught by process experts (regression coefficient 2.7 [0.1, 5.4], p < .05), but not content experts (p = .09). CONCLUSIONS: When preceptors are physicians, content expertise is not a prerequisite to teach first year medical students within a structured small group environment; preceptors with process expertise result in at least equivalent, if not superior, student outcomes in this setting. BioMed Central 2010-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC2966459/ /pubmed/20946674 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-70 Text en Copyright ©2010 Peets et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Peets, Adam D
Cooke, Lara
Wright, Bruce
Coderre, Sylvain
McLaughlin, Kevin
A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching
title A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching
title_full A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching
title_fullStr A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching
title_full_unstemmed A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching
title_short A prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching
title_sort prospective randomized trial of content expertise versus process expertise in small group teaching
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2966459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20946674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-70
work_keys_str_mv AT peetsadamd aprospectiverandomizedtrialofcontentexpertiseversusprocessexpertiseinsmallgroupteaching
AT cookelara aprospectiverandomizedtrialofcontentexpertiseversusprocessexpertiseinsmallgroupteaching
AT wrightbruce aprospectiverandomizedtrialofcontentexpertiseversusprocessexpertiseinsmallgroupteaching
AT coderresylvain aprospectiverandomizedtrialofcontentexpertiseversusprocessexpertiseinsmallgroupteaching
AT mclaughlinkevin aprospectiverandomizedtrialofcontentexpertiseversusprocessexpertiseinsmallgroupteaching
AT peetsadamd prospectiverandomizedtrialofcontentexpertiseversusprocessexpertiseinsmallgroupteaching
AT cookelara prospectiverandomizedtrialofcontentexpertiseversusprocessexpertiseinsmallgroupteaching
AT wrightbruce prospectiverandomizedtrialofcontentexpertiseversusprocessexpertiseinsmallgroupteaching
AT coderresylvain prospectiverandomizedtrialofcontentexpertiseversusprocessexpertiseinsmallgroupteaching
AT mclaughlinkevin prospectiverandomizedtrialofcontentexpertiseversusprocessexpertiseinsmallgroupteaching