Analysis of the Characteristics of Discussion Materials that Promote Group Discussion in the Medical Humanities.
- Author:
Jae Hee AHN
1
;
Woo Taek JEON
Author Information
1. Department of Medical Education, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. wtjeon@yuhs.ac
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Medical humanities;
Discussion class;
Medical student;
Class participation
- MeSH:
Humanities;
Humans;
Students, Medical;
Students, Premedical
- From:Korean Journal of Medical Education
2011;23(4):253-262
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: This study aims to analyze the characteristics of discussion materials that promote student participation in discussions, satisfaction with student instruction, and tutor intervention in the medical humanities. METHODS: We surveyed 117 premedical students and 7 tutors who attended 4-week group discussions in the medical humanities in 2010. We described the discussion materials using the following 4 characteristics as independent variables: material type, level of understanding, interest, and quantity. Dependent variables were: student participation in the discussion, student instruction satisfaction, and tutor intervention. Correlation analysis, multiple regression analysis, and crosstab were performed using SPSS 15.0. RESULTS: The correlation between the characteristics of the discussion materials differed by grade. When the books were chosen as the discussion material in the instruction of first-year premedical students, the correlation between level of understanding, interest, and quantity was negative. Higher levels of understanding of the material and interest in the material led to an increase in discussion participation among both first- and second-year premedical students. Higher levels of understanding and interest of the discussion material also increased student satisfaction with the instruction, regardless of grade. Finally, levels of understanding of the material affected the degree of tutor intervention. Tutors intervened more often in discussions with first-year premedical students than with second-year premedical students. CONCLUSION: Differences in grades and the understanding of the discussion material should be considered when choosing discussion materials. Further study is required to continue the development of the discussion model and improve methods of facilitate discussion among students in the medical humanities.
