4.6 Article

Undergraduate radiology teaching from the student's perspective

期刊

INSIGHTS INTO IMAGING
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 103-109

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s13244-012-0206-8

关键词

Radiology; Teaching; Student opinion; Teaching methods; Undergraduate medical education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To obtain medical students' evaluation of the quality of undergraduate radiology teaching received, preferred teaching methods and resources. This is a follow-up project to an earlier study of junior doctors who felt that radiology teaching left them ill prepared for medical practice. Methods A questionnaire to third and fifth year medical students undertaking clinical rotations at Newcastle University, UK. Results The questionnaire was completed by 57/60 (95 %) of third and 37/40 (93 %) of final year medical students. Students received minimal radiology teaching in pre-clinical years, feeling this was insufficient. The majority of students rated interactive case-based teaching as effective. Selfdirected learning resources such as textbooks, journals and even online learning modules were perceived as less effective. Other types of web resources rated higher. Motivation for most students when studying radiology was to achieve learning objectives needed to pass their next exams and/or to improve as a doctor. Conclusions Medical students criticise the lack of radiology teaching in pre-clinical undergraduate years. Radiology teaching should be represented in all undergraduate years, preferably delivered via interactive teaching sessions. Currently available e-learning modules do not meet the students' learning needs and there is a call for reliable, upto- date open access electronic resources. Main Messages Radiology teaching should be represented in all preclinical and clinical undergraduate years. Medical students rate interactive case-based teaching sessions as very effective. There is a call for reliable, up-to-date open access electronic resources for medical students.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据