The Experts below are selected from a list of 35289 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

William N. P. Herbert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Small Group Discussion versus lecture format for third year students in obstetrics and gynecology
    Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2004
    Co-Authors: Richard L. Fischer, Samuel L. Jacobs, William N. P. Herbert
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To compare lecture and Small-Group Discussion for third-year medical students in obstetrics and gynecology. METHODS: Over a 2-year period, 91 third-year medical students in the obstetrics and gynecology clerkships were given educational sessions on diabetes and hypertension in pregnancy by a single instructor, either in a traditional lecture format or in a Small-Group Discussion. After the instructional sessions, students anonymously completed a 20-question multiple-choice examination on the covered topics. They also completed an evaluation form on the instructional format, using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). At the completion of each clerkship, students repeated the same multiple-choice examination. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher level of enjoyment (median value 5 versus 4, P <.001) and sense of educational stimulation (median value 5 versus 4, P < .001) in the Discussion Group, and students in the Discussion Group were less desirous of the alternate instructional format than those in the lecture Group (median value 2 versus 3, P <.001). However, there were no differences in the test scores, either immediately after the instructional sessions or at the end of the clerkships. There was a 90% power to detect a 15% difference in postinstructional test scores. CONCLUSION: Third-year medical students learning about hypertension and diabetes in pregnancy during their obstetrics and gynecology clerkship strongly preferred Small-Group Discussions over traditional lectures. However, this preference did not lead to improved test scores on these subjects.

  • Small-Group Discussion versus lecture format for third-year students in obstetrics and gynecology.
    Obstetrics and gynecology, 2004
    Co-Authors: Richard L. Fischer, Samuel L. Jacobs, William N. P. Herbert
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To compare lecture and Small-Group Discussion for third-year medical students in obstetrics and gynecology. METHODS: Over a 2-year period, 91 third-year medical students in the obstetrics and gynecology clerkships were given educational sessions on diabetes and hypertension in pregnancy by a single instructor, either in a traditional lecture format or in a Small-Group Discussion. After the instructional sessions, students anonymously completed a 20-question multiple-choice examination on the covered topics. They also completed an evaluation form on the instructional format, using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). At the completion of each clerkship, students repeated the same multiple-choice examination. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher level of enjoyment (median value 5 versus 4, P

Susan Burgin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • teaching learning tips 7 Small Group Discussion
    International Journal of Dermatology, 2018
    Co-Authors: Elizabeth R. Lemoine, Jasmine Rana, Susan Burgin
    Abstract:

    Challenge: The success of a Small-Group Discussion depends in large part on the effectiveness of the facilitator or Small-Group tutor. How can a facilitator successfully manage diverse views and knowledge bases of participants while also contributing as a member of the Group? Herein, we provide tips for managing Small-Group Discussions that can be applied widely in dermatology didactics.

  • Teaching & Learning Tips 7: Small‐Group Discussion
    International journal of dermatology, 2018
    Co-Authors: Elizabeth R. Lemoine, Jasmine Rana, Susan Burgin
    Abstract:

    Challenge: The success of a Small-Group Discussion depends in large part on the effectiveness of the facilitator or Small-Group tutor. How can a facilitator successfully manage diverse views and knowledge bases of participants while also contributing as a member of the Group? Herein, we provide tips for managing Small-Group Discussions that can be applied widely in dermatology didactics.

Richard L. Fischer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Small Group Discussion versus lecture format for third year students in obstetrics and gynecology
    Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2004
    Co-Authors: Richard L. Fischer, Samuel L. Jacobs, William N. P. Herbert
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To compare lecture and Small-Group Discussion for third-year medical students in obstetrics and gynecology. METHODS: Over a 2-year period, 91 third-year medical students in the obstetrics and gynecology clerkships were given educational sessions on diabetes and hypertension in pregnancy by a single instructor, either in a traditional lecture format or in a Small-Group Discussion. After the instructional sessions, students anonymously completed a 20-question multiple-choice examination on the covered topics. They also completed an evaluation form on the instructional format, using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). At the completion of each clerkship, students repeated the same multiple-choice examination. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher level of enjoyment (median value 5 versus 4, P <.001) and sense of educational stimulation (median value 5 versus 4, P < .001) in the Discussion Group, and students in the Discussion Group were less desirous of the alternate instructional format than those in the lecture Group (median value 2 versus 3, P <.001). However, there were no differences in the test scores, either immediately after the instructional sessions or at the end of the clerkships. There was a 90% power to detect a 15% difference in postinstructional test scores. CONCLUSION: Third-year medical students learning about hypertension and diabetes in pregnancy during their obstetrics and gynecology clerkship strongly preferred Small-Group Discussions over traditional lectures. However, this preference did not lead to improved test scores on these subjects.

  • Small-Group Discussion versus lecture format for third-year students in obstetrics and gynecology.
    Obstetrics and gynecology, 2004
    Co-Authors: Richard L. Fischer, Samuel L. Jacobs, William N. P. Herbert
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To compare lecture and Small-Group Discussion for third-year medical students in obstetrics and gynecology. METHODS: Over a 2-year period, 91 third-year medical students in the obstetrics and gynecology clerkships were given educational sessions on diabetes and hypertension in pregnancy by a single instructor, either in a traditional lecture format or in a Small-Group Discussion. After the instructional sessions, students anonymously completed a 20-question multiple-choice examination on the covered topics. They also completed an evaluation form on the instructional format, using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). At the completion of each clerkship, students repeated the same multiple-choice examination. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher level of enjoyment (median value 5 versus 4, P

Jean Carletta - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Nonverbal behaviours improving a simulation of Small Group Discussion
    2003
    Co-Authors: Emiliano Padilha, Jean Carletta
    Abstract:

    This paper reports on the development of a multi-agent simulation of Small Group Discussion that focusses on the interaction and the coordination of turn-taking. We describe the addition of nonverbal behaviours, such as gaze, gestures, posture shifts and head and facial expression, to the model; how the agents in the simulation take these behaviours into account in their decisions to speak, to stop, or to give feedback. The simulation is to be evaluated comparing its statistical profile against the statistics generated by a simpler, base model, one without the nonverbal behaviours, to show that it better approximates the statistics of a real Group Discussion. The properties to be assessed include mean transition intervals, turn lengths, relation of gaze to speaking order, frequency of simultaneous starts, and of feedback.

  • A simulation of Small Group Discussion
    2002
    Co-Authors: Emiliano Padilha, Jean Carletta
    Abstract:

    We describe a simulation of turn-taking in Small Group Discussion which includes behaviours from a range of modalities such as speech, gaze, facial expression, gesture, and posture. The simulation is intended to show how these behaviours contribute to the turn-taking process. The agents that participate in the Discussion make probabilistic decisions about whether or not to exhibit behaviours such as speaking, making a backchannel, or shifting posture, within a general framework suggested by the existing largely descriptive literature on turntaking. The Group behaviours that characterize turn-taking models, such as turns, simultaneous speech, and competition for the floor, emerge from the individual behaviours of the agents. At this stage in the project the basic model has been designed and prototyped.

Samuel L. Jacobs - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Small Group Discussion versus lecture format for third year students in obstetrics and gynecology
    Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2004
    Co-Authors: Richard L. Fischer, Samuel L. Jacobs, William N. P. Herbert
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To compare lecture and Small-Group Discussion for third-year medical students in obstetrics and gynecology. METHODS: Over a 2-year period, 91 third-year medical students in the obstetrics and gynecology clerkships were given educational sessions on diabetes and hypertension in pregnancy by a single instructor, either in a traditional lecture format or in a Small-Group Discussion. After the instructional sessions, students anonymously completed a 20-question multiple-choice examination on the covered topics. They also completed an evaluation form on the instructional format, using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). At the completion of each clerkship, students repeated the same multiple-choice examination. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher level of enjoyment (median value 5 versus 4, P <.001) and sense of educational stimulation (median value 5 versus 4, P < .001) in the Discussion Group, and students in the Discussion Group were less desirous of the alternate instructional format than those in the lecture Group (median value 2 versus 3, P <.001). However, there were no differences in the test scores, either immediately after the instructional sessions or at the end of the clerkships. There was a 90% power to detect a 15% difference in postinstructional test scores. CONCLUSION: Third-year medical students learning about hypertension and diabetes in pregnancy during their obstetrics and gynecology clerkship strongly preferred Small-Group Discussions over traditional lectures. However, this preference did not lead to improved test scores on these subjects.

  • Small-Group Discussion versus lecture format for third-year students in obstetrics and gynecology.
    Obstetrics and gynecology, 2004
    Co-Authors: Richard L. Fischer, Samuel L. Jacobs, William N. P. Herbert
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE: To compare lecture and Small-Group Discussion for third-year medical students in obstetrics and gynecology. METHODS: Over a 2-year period, 91 third-year medical students in the obstetrics and gynecology clerkships were given educational sessions on diabetes and hypertension in pregnancy by a single instructor, either in a traditional lecture format or in a Small-Group Discussion. After the instructional sessions, students anonymously completed a 20-question multiple-choice examination on the covered topics. They also completed an evaluation form on the instructional format, using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). At the completion of each clerkship, students repeated the same multiple-choice examination. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher level of enjoyment (median value 5 versus 4, P