Search

Your search keyword '"Session integration"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Descriptor "Session integration" Topic co-teaching
2 results on '"Session integration"'

1. Modeling integration: co-teaching basic and clinical sciences medicine in the classroom

Author

Willey JM, Lim YS, and Kwiatkowski T

Subjects
Co-teaching, Shared teaching, Content integration, Session integration, Special aspects of education, LC8-6691, Medicine (General), R5-920
Abstract

Joanne M Willey, Youn Seon Lim, Thomas Kwiatkowski Department of Science Education, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA Purpose: Calls for revision in undergraduate medical education frequently cite the importance of integrating basic and clinical sciences and the use of active pedagogies. One under-appreciated approach to accomplishing both is interactive co-teaching, defined as two instructors with complementary expertise engaging students and each other instead of lecturing. This study sought to determine if interactive co-teaching helped students integrate and learn basic and clinical sciences, as well as to explore potential advantages and barriers to co-teaching.Methods: The comparative success of solo- and co-teaching in a microbiology/infectious disease course was determined by surveying student perceptions at the end of the course and examination scores for questions based on either solo- or co-taught content. The advantages and barriers to co-teaching were explored by thematic analysis of student responses to open-ended survey questions.Results: Results suggest that co-teaching supported content integration as a significant majority of students (92%, n=112) reported they understood the connection between basic and clinical sciences better when content was co-taught. In addition, a plurality of students indicated that co-teaching provided a better overall learning experience (81%, n=99), was more engaging (74%, n=90), and made it easier to apply content (74%, n=90). These positive perceptions were reflected in better exam outcomes for materials covered in co-taught over solo-taught sessions.Conclusion: Results suggest students value co-teaching as a means to integrate basic and clinical sciences. However, interactive co-teaching pedagogies require careful planning and collaboration among faculty. Co-teaching requires the commitment of both faculty members to this pedagogy. Keywords: team teaching, microbiology, infectious disease, shared teaching, content integration, session integration

Published
2018

2. Modeling integration: co-teaching basic and clinical sciences medicine in the classroom

Author

Joanne M. Willey, Youn Seon Lim, and Thomas Kwiatkowski

Subjects
Value (ethics), 020205 medical informatics, Content integration, infectious disease, session integration, 02 engineering and technology, Positive perception, Education, Learning experience, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Team teaching, ComputingMilieux_COMPUTERSANDEDUCATION, 0202 electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering, Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 030212 general & internal medicine, Co-teaching, Original Research, Student perceptions, Medical education, shared teaching, microbiology, team teaching, Thematic analysis, content integration, Psychology
Abstract

Joanne M Willey, Youn Seon Lim, Thomas Kwiatkowski Department of Science Education, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA Purpose: Calls for revision in undergraduate medical education frequently cite the importance of integrating basic and clinical sciences and the use of active pedagogies. One under-appreciated approach to accomplishing both is interactive co-teaching, defined as two instructors with complementary expertise engaging students and each other instead of lecturing. This study sought to determine if interactive co-teaching helped students integrate and learn basic and clinical sciences, as well as to explore potential advantages and barriers to co-teaching.Methods: The comparative success of solo- and co-teaching in a microbiology/infectious disease course was determined by surveying student perceptions at the end of the course and examination scores for questions based on either solo- or co-taught content. The advantages and barriers to co-teaching were explored by thematic analysis of student responses to open-ended survey questions.Results: Results suggest that co-teaching supported content integration as a significant majority of students (92%, n=112) reported they understood the connection between basic and clinical sciences better when content was co-taught. In addition, a plurality of students indicated that co-teaching provided a better overall learning experience (81%, n=99), was more engaging (74%, n=90), and made it easier to apply content (74%, n=90). These positive perceptions were reflected in better exam outcomes for materials covered in co-taught over solo-taught sessions.Conclusion: Results suggest students value co-teaching as a means to integrate basic and clinical sciences. However, interactive co-teaching pedagogies require careful planning and collaboration among faculty. Co-teaching requires the commitment of both faculty members to this pedagogy. Keywords: team teaching, microbiology, infectious disease, shared teaching, content integration, session integration&nbsp

Published
2018

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results