Too much time or not enough? An observational study of teacher wait time after questions in case-based seminars.

BACKGROUND: We define teacher wait time (TWT) as a pause between a teacher question and the following response given by a student. TWT is valuable because it gives students time to activate prior knowledge and reflect on possible answers to teacher questions. We seek to gain initial insights into the phenomenon of TWT in medical education and give commensurate recommendations to clinical teachers. METHODS: We observed n = 719 teacher questions followed by wait time. These were video-recorded in 29 case-based seminars in undergraduate medical education in the areas of surgery and internal medicine. The seminars were taught by 19 different clinical teachers. The videos were coded with satisfactory reliability. Time-to-event data analysis was used to explore TWT overall and independently of question types. RESULTS: In our sample of case-based seminars, about 10% of all teacher questions were followed by TWT. While the median duration of TWT was 4.41 s, we observed large variation between different teachers (median between 2.88 and 10.96 s). Based on our results, we recommend that clinical teachers wait for at least five, but not longer than 10-12 s after initial questions. For follow-up and reproduction questions, we recommend shorter wait times of 5-8 s. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides insights into the frequency and duration of TWT and its dependence on prior questions in case-based seminars. Our results provide clinical teachers with guidance on how to use TWT as an easily accessible tool that gives students time to reflect on and respond to teacher questions.

Is there an increase over time in the complexity of teacher questions and student responses in case-based clinical seminars? A cross-sectional video study.

BACKGROUND: Case-based group discussions (CBGD) are a specific, interaction-focused format dedicated to fostering medical students' skills in applying basic biomedical knowledge to patient cases. Existing conceptions of CBGD suggest that a gradient towards increased opportunities for students to make elaborative verbal contributions is an important element of such seminars. To verify this assumption, we investigate empirically if clinical teachers progress from more basic, knowledge-oriented questions towards more advanced, elaboration-oriented questions in such seminars. METHODS: We videotaped 21 different clinical teachers and 398 medical students in 32 CBGD-seminars on surgery and internal medicine. We coded closed-reproductive and open-elaborative teacher questions as well as reproductive and elaborative student responses to these questions. Inter-rater reliability was satisfactory. To determine trends regarding the teacher questions / student responses, we compared eight time-segments of equal duration per seminar. RESULTS: Overall, clinical teachers asked more closed-reproductive than open-elaborative questions. Students gave more reproductive than elaborative responses. Regarding the frequencies of these forms of teacher questions / student responses, we found no significant differences over time. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical teachers did not deliberately modify the types of questions over time to push students towards more elaborative responses. We conclude that the critical question to which degree promising teaching approaches are actually put into clinical teaching practice should be raised more purposefully in medical education research.

Teacher questions and student responses in case-based learning: outcomes of a video study in medical education.

BACKGROUND: Case-based learning (CBL) is a highly interactive instructional format widely used in medical education. One goal of CBL is to integrate basic biomedical knowledge and its application to concrete patient cases and their clinical management. In this context, we focus the role of teacher questions as triggers for reproductive vs. elaborative student responses. Specifically, our research questions concern the kinds of questions posed by clinical teachers, the kinds of responses given by students, the prediction of student responses based upon teacher questions, and the differences between the two medical disciplines in focus of our study, internal medicine and surgery. METHODS: We analyse 19 videotaped seminars (nine internal medicine, ten surgery) taught by clinicians and attended by advanced medical students. Multiple raters performed a low-inference rating process using a theory-based categorical scheme with satisfactory interrater-reliability. RESULTS: We found that medical teachers mostly posed initial (instead of follow-up) questions and that their questions were more often closed (instead of open). Also, more reasoning (than reproductive) questions were posed. A high rate of student non-response was observed while elaborative and reproductive student responses had a similar prevalence. In the prediction context, follow-up reasoning questions were associated with low non-response and many elaborative answers. In contrast, the highest student non-response rate followed open reproduction questions and initial reasoning questions. Most reproductive statements by students were made following closed reproduction questions. CONCLUSIONS: These results deepen our understanding of interactive, questions-driven medical teaching and provide an empirical basis for clinical teachers to use questions in didactically fruitful ways.

Improving physicians' surgical ward round competence through simulation-based training.

OBJECTIVE: Ward rounds are an essential part of physicians' daily routine. Existing studies suggest that their practical implementation is inconsistent. Therefore, developing interventions to train ward round competence and assessing if they are effective educational tools are crucial goals for research. METHODS: We analysed a simulation-based tutorial dedicated to fourth-year medical students, including casework and ward round simulation. We investigated the effectiveness of this intervention regarding ward round competence through a randomized controlled trial. Performance was assessed with the modified/validated surgical ward round assessment tool by two blinded and trained raters. Supplementary, motivation during the ward round tutorial was assessed for all students at different time points. RESULTS: Analysis of the ratings show that, in contrast to the control group (pre: 66.1 vs. post: 64.8 points, p =  0.72), the ward round competence of the intervention group (pre: 62.6 vs. post: 69.6 points, p =  0.0169) improved significantly after participating in the ward round tutorial. CONCLUSION: The results show that our simulation-based training is an effective way to improve competence of medical students in conducting surgical ward rounds. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Participation in ward round trainings is a valuable tool to prepare students for their future professional practise.