↓ Skip to main content

Challenging students to formulate written questions: a randomized controlled trial to assess learning effects

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Challenging students to formulate written questions: a randomized controlled trial to assess learning effects
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0336-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marleen Olde Bekkink, A R T Rogier Donders, Jan G Kooloos, Rob MW de Waal, Dirk J Ruiter

Abstract

Underutilization of dialogue among students during small-group work is a threat to active meaningful learning. To encourage small-group learning, we challenged students to generate written questions during a small-group work session. As gender differences have been shown to affect learning, these were also inventoried. Prospective randomized study during a bachelor General Pathology course including 459 (bio) medical students, 315 females and 144 males. The intervention was to individually generate an extra written question on disease mechanisms, followed by a selection, by each student group, of the two questions considered to be most relevant. These selected questions were open for discussion during the subsequent interactive lecture. Outcome measure was the score on tumour pathology (range 1-10) on the course examination; the effect of gender was assessed. The mean score per student was 7.2 (intervention) and 6.9 (control; p = 0.22). Male students in the intervention group scored 0.5 point higher than controls (p = 0.05). In female students, this was only 0.1 point higher (p = 0.75). Formulating and prioritizing an extra written question during small-group work seems to exert a positive learning effect on male students. This is an interesting approach to improve learning in male students, as they generally tend to perform less well than their female colleagues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 28%
Psychology 11 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 19 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,329,087
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,259
of 3,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,722
of 262,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#43
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.