| Title |
What millennial medical students say about flipped learning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s139569 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robin K Pettit, Lise McCoy, Marjorie Kinney |
| Abstract |
Flipped instruction is gaining popularity in medical schools, but there are unanswered questions such as the optimum amount of the curriculum to flip and whether flipped sessions should be mandatory. We were in a unique position to evaluate feedback from first-year medical students who had experienced both flipped and lecture-based courses during their first semester of medical school. A key finding was that the students preferred a variety of different learning formats over an "all or nothing" learning format. Learning format preferences did not necessarily align with perceptions of which format led to better course exam performance. Nearly 70% of respondents wanted to make their own decisions regarding attendance. Candid responses to open-ended survey prompts reflected millennial preferences for choice, flexibility, efficiency, and the ability to control the pace of their learning, providing insight to guide curricular improvements. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 17% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 27 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#16,305,401
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,682
of 327,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them