Comparison of Lecture-Based Learning vs Discussion-Based Learning in Undergraduate Medical Students
Objective To compare lecture-based learning (LBL) and discussion-based learning (DBL) by assessing immediate and long-term knowledge retention and application of practical knowledge in third- and fourth-year medical students. Design A prospective, randomized control trial was designed to study the e...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of surgical education 2016-03, Vol.73 (2), p.250-257 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 257 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 250 |
container_title | Journal of surgical education |
container_volume | 73 |
creator | Zhao, Beiqun, MD Potter, Donald D., MD |
description | Objective To compare lecture-based learning (LBL) and discussion-based learning (DBL) by assessing immediate and long-term knowledge retention and application of practical knowledge in third- and fourth-year medical students. Design A prospective, randomized control trial was designed to study the effects of DBL. Medical students were randomly assigned to intervention (DBL) or control (LBL) groups. Both the groups were instructed regarding the management of gastroschisis. The control group received a PowerPoint presentation, whereas the intervention group was guided only by an objectives list and a gastroschisis model. Students were evaluated using a multiple-choice pretest (Pre-Test MC) immediately before the teaching session, a posttest (Post-Test MC) following the session, and a follow-up test (Follow-Up MC) at 3 months. A practical examination (PE), which tested simple skills and management decisions, was administered at the end of the clerkship (Initial PE) and at 3 months after clerkship (Follow-Up PE). Students were also given a self-evaluation immediately following the Post-Test MC to gauge satisfaction and comfort level in the management of gastroschisis. Setting University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and the Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA. Participants A total of 49 third- and fourth-year medical students who were enrolled in the general surgery clerkship were eligible for this study. Enrollment into the study was completely voluntary. Of the 49 eligible students, 36 students agreed to participate in the study, and 27 completed the study. Results Mean scores for the Pre-Test MC, Post-Test MC, and Follow-Up MC were similar between the control and intervention groups. In the control group, the Post-Test MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (8.92 ± 0.79 vs 4.00 ± 1.04, p < 0.0001), whereas the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly lower than Post-Test MC scores (7.17 ± 1.75 vs 8.92 ± 0.79, p = 0.005). In the control group, the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (7.17 ± 1.75 vs 4.00 ± 1.04, p < 0.0001). Analysis of variance for all control group MC examinations had a p < 0.0001. In the intervention group, the Post-Test MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (8.33 ± 1.23 vs 4.60 ± 1.55, p < 0.0001), whereas the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly lower than Post-Test MC scores (7.13 ± 1.77 vs 8.33 ± 1.23, p = 0.04). In the intervention group, the Follow- |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.09.016 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1765109615</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S193172041500238X</els_id><sourcerecordid>1765109615</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-6f8e54705123852a1d7e1667e596a663697ff9036a58997ff7af88da6f9cc7ec3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9v1DAQxS1ERUvLJ0BCOXJJsJPYjg8g0eWvtFUPpRI3y9iTlUPWXjxxpX57HLZw6IWTx8_veezfEPKS0YZRJt5MzYQ57ZqWMt5Q1RTtCTljgxxq2fP2aalVx2rZ0v6UPEecKOW9atUzctoKXmTVnxG7ifuDSR5jqOJYbcEuOUF9aRBc2ZkUfNhVd1h98Ggzoo_h8aEP1W1wkHbJuGwWqK7AeWvm6mbJDsKCF-RkNDPCi4f1nNx--vht86XeXn_-unm_rW3P-qUW4wC8l5Sztht4a5iTwISQwJUwQnRCyXFUtBOGD2qtpRmHwRkxKmsl2O6cvD7ee0jxVwZc9L48GubZBIgZNZOCM6oE48XaHa02RcQEoz4kvzfpXjOqV7p60n_o6pWupkoXraRePTTIP_bg_mX-4iyGt0cDlG_eeUgarYdgC5BUyGoX_X8avHuUt7MPK8yfcA84xZxCIaiZxlZTfbMOeJ0v45QWaN-731sqoZc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1765109615</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Lecture-Based Learning vs Discussion-Based Learning in Undergraduate Medical Students</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Zhao, Beiqun, MD ; Potter, Donald D., MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Beiqun, MD ; Potter, Donald D., MD</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To compare lecture-based learning (LBL) and discussion-based learning (DBL) by assessing immediate and long-term knowledge retention and application of practical knowledge in third- and fourth-year medical students. Design A prospective, randomized control trial was designed to study the effects of DBL. Medical students were randomly assigned to intervention (DBL) or control (LBL) groups. Both the groups were instructed regarding the management of gastroschisis. The control group received a PowerPoint presentation, whereas the intervention group was guided only by an objectives list and a gastroschisis model. Students were evaluated using a multiple-choice pretest (Pre-Test MC) immediately before the teaching session, a posttest (Post-Test MC) following the session, and a follow-up test (Follow-Up MC) at 3 months. A practical examination (PE), which tested simple skills and management decisions, was administered at the end of the clerkship (Initial PE) and at 3 months after clerkship (Follow-Up PE). Students were also given a self-evaluation immediately following the Post-Test MC to gauge satisfaction and comfort level in the management of gastroschisis. Setting University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and the Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA. Participants A total of 49 third- and fourth-year medical students who were enrolled in the general surgery clerkship were eligible for this study. Enrollment into the study was completely voluntary. Of the 49 eligible students, 36 students agreed to participate in the study, and 27 completed the study. Results Mean scores for the Pre-Test MC, Post-Test MC, and Follow-Up MC were similar between the control and intervention groups. In the control group, the Post-Test MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (8.92 ± 0.79 vs 4.00 ± 1.04, p < 0.0001), whereas the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly lower than Post-Test MC scores (7.17 ± 1.75 vs 8.92 ± 0.79, p = 0.005). In the control group, the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (7.17 ± 1.75 vs 4.00 ± 1.04, p < 0.0001). Analysis of variance for all control group MC examinations had a p < 0.0001. In the intervention group, the Post-Test MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (8.33 ± 1.23 vs 4.60 ± 1.55, p < 0.0001), whereas the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly lower than Post-Test MC scores (7.13 ± 1.77 vs 8.33 ± 1.23, p = 0.04). In the intervention group, the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (7.13 ± 1.77 vs 4.60 ± 1.55, p = 0.0002). Analysis of variance for all intervention group MC examinations had a p < 0.0001. Mean scores for the Initial PE were significantly higher for the intervention group compared with the control group’s score (7.47 ± 1.68 vs 5.25 ± 2.34, p = 0.008). Mean scores for the Follow-Up PE were significantly higher for the intervention group compared with the control group’s score (7.87 ± 1.77 vs 5.83 ± 2.04, p = 0.005). A comparison of Initial PE vs Follow-Up PE was not significant in either group. Students in the intervention group were more comfortable in the immediate management of gastroschisis and placement of a silo and felt that the educational experience was more worthwhile than students in the control group did. Conclusions After a single instructional session, there was a significant difference in the students’ scores between the control and the intervention groups on both administrations of the PEs. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any administration of the MC examinations. This seems to suggest that DBL may lead to better practical knowledge and potentially improved long-term knowledge retention when compared with LBL. Students in the DBL group also felt more comfortable with the management of gastroschisis and were more satisfied with the educational session.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1931-7204</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-7452</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.09.016</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26572094</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Competency-Based Education ; education ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods ; Educational Measurement ; Female ; gastroschisis ; Gastroschisis - therapy ; Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; Interpersonal and Communication Skills ; Iowa ; Learning ; lecture-based learning ; Male ; Manikins ; Medical Knowledge ; Patient Care ; Practice-Based Learning and Improvement ; problem-based learning ; Prospective Studies ; simulation ; simulation-based learning ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>Journal of surgical education, 2016-03, Vol.73 (2), p.250-257</ispartof><rights>Association of Program Directors in Surgery</rights><rights>2015 Association of Program Directors in Surgery</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-6f8e54705123852a1d7e1667e596a663697ff9036a58997ff7af88da6f9cc7ec3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-6f8e54705123852a1d7e1667e596a663697ff9036a58997ff7af88da6f9cc7ec3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.09.016$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26572094$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Beiqun, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Potter, Donald D., MD</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Lecture-Based Learning vs Discussion-Based Learning in Undergraduate Medical Students</title><title>Journal of surgical education</title><addtitle>J Surg Educ</addtitle><description>Objective To compare lecture-based learning (LBL) and discussion-based learning (DBL) by assessing immediate and long-term knowledge retention and application of practical knowledge in third- and fourth-year medical students. Design A prospective, randomized control trial was designed to study the effects of DBL. Medical students were randomly assigned to intervention (DBL) or control (LBL) groups. Both the groups were instructed regarding the management of gastroschisis. The control group received a PowerPoint presentation, whereas the intervention group was guided only by an objectives list and a gastroschisis model. Students were evaluated using a multiple-choice pretest (Pre-Test MC) immediately before the teaching session, a posttest (Post-Test MC) following the session, and a follow-up test (Follow-Up MC) at 3 months. A practical examination (PE), which tested simple skills and management decisions, was administered at the end of the clerkship (Initial PE) and at 3 months after clerkship (Follow-Up PE). Students were also given a self-evaluation immediately following the Post-Test MC to gauge satisfaction and comfort level in the management of gastroschisis. Setting University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and the Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA. Participants A total of 49 third- and fourth-year medical students who were enrolled in the general surgery clerkship were eligible for this study. Enrollment into the study was completely voluntary. Of the 49 eligible students, 36 students agreed to participate in the study, and 27 completed the study. Results Mean scores for the Pre-Test MC, Post-Test MC, and Follow-Up MC were similar between the control and intervention groups. In the control group, the Post-Test MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (8.92 ± 0.79 vs 4.00 ± 1.04, p < 0.0001), whereas the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly lower than Post-Test MC scores (7.17 ± 1.75 vs 8.92 ± 0.79, p = 0.005). In the control group, the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (7.17 ± 1.75 vs 4.00 ± 1.04, p < 0.0001). Analysis of variance for all control group MC examinations had a p < 0.0001. In the intervention group, the Post-Test MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (8.33 ± 1.23 vs 4.60 ± 1.55, p < 0.0001), whereas the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly lower than Post-Test MC scores (7.13 ± 1.77 vs 8.33 ± 1.23, p = 0.04). In the intervention group, the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (7.13 ± 1.77 vs 4.60 ± 1.55, p = 0.0002). Analysis of variance for all intervention group MC examinations had a p < 0.0001. Mean scores for the Initial PE were significantly higher for the intervention group compared with the control group’s score (7.47 ± 1.68 vs 5.25 ± 2.34, p = 0.008). Mean scores for the Follow-Up PE were significantly higher for the intervention group compared with the control group’s score (7.87 ± 1.77 vs 5.83 ± 2.04, p = 0.005). A comparison of Initial PE vs Follow-Up PE was not significant in either group. Students in the intervention group were more comfortable in the immediate management of gastroschisis and placement of a silo and felt that the educational experience was more worthwhile than students in the control group did. Conclusions After a single instructional session, there was a significant difference in the students’ scores between the control and the intervention groups on both administrations of the PEs. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any administration of the MC examinations. This seems to suggest that DBL may lead to better practical knowledge and potentially improved long-term knowledge retention when compared with LBL. Students in the DBL group also felt more comfortable with the management of gastroschisis and were more satisfied with the educational session.</description><subject>Competency-Based Education</subject><subject>education</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</subject><subject>Educational Measurement</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>gastroschisis</subject><subject>Gastroschisis - therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>Interpersonal and Communication Skills</subject><subject>Iowa</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>lecture-based learning</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Manikins</subject><subject>Medical Knowledge</subject><subject>Patient Care</subject><subject>Practice-Based Learning and Improvement</subject><subject>problem-based learning</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>simulation</subject><subject>simulation-based learning</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>1931-7204</issn><issn>1878-7452</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU9v1DAQxS1ERUvLJ0BCOXJJsJPYjg8g0eWvtFUPpRI3y9iTlUPWXjxxpX57HLZw6IWTx8_veezfEPKS0YZRJt5MzYQ57ZqWMt5Q1RTtCTljgxxq2fP2aalVx2rZ0v6UPEecKOW9atUzctoKXmTVnxG7ifuDSR5jqOJYbcEuOUF9aRBc2ZkUfNhVd1h98Ggzoo_h8aEP1W1wkHbJuGwWqK7AeWvm6mbJDsKCF-RkNDPCi4f1nNx--vht86XeXn_-unm_rW3P-qUW4wC8l5Sztht4a5iTwISQwJUwQnRCyXFUtBOGD2qtpRmHwRkxKmsl2O6cvD7ee0jxVwZc9L48GubZBIgZNZOCM6oE48XaHa02RcQEoz4kvzfpXjOqV7p60n_o6pWupkoXraRePTTIP_bg_mX-4iyGt0cDlG_eeUgarYdgC5BUyGoX_X8avHuUt7MPK8yfcA84xZxCIaiZxlZTfbMOeJ0v45QWaN-731sqoZc</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>Zhao, Beiqun, MD</creator><creator>Potter, Donald D., MD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>Comparison of Lecture-Based Learning vs Discussion-Based Learning in Undergraduate Medical Students</title><author>Zhao, Beiqun, MD ; Potter, Donald D., MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-6f8e54705123852a1d7e1667e596a663697ff9036a58997ff7af88da6f9cc7ec3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Competency-Based Education</topic><topic>education</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods</topic><topic>Educational Measurement</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>gastroschisis</topic><topic>Gastroschisis - therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>Interpersonal and Communication Skills</topic><topic>Iowa</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>lecture-based learning</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Manikins</topic><topic>Medical Knowledge</topic><topic>Patient Care</topic><topic>Practice-Based Learning and Improvement</topic><topic>problem-based learning</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>simulation</topic><topic>simulation-based learning</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Beiqun, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Potter, Donald D., MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of surgical education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhao, Beiqun, MD</au><au>Potter, Donald D., MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Lecture-Based Learning vs Discussion-Based Learning in Undergraduate Medical Students</atitle><jtitle>Journal of surgical education</jtitle><addtitle>J Surg Educ</addtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>250</spage><epage>257</epage><pages>250-257</pages><issn>1931-7204</issn><eissn>1878-7452</eissn><abstract>Objective To compare lecture-based learning (LBL) and discussion-based learning (DBL) by assessing immediate and long-term knowledge retention and application of practical knowledge in third- and fourth-year medical students. Design A prospective, randomized control trial was designed to study the effects of DBL. Medical students were randomly assigned to intervention (DBL) or control (LBL) groups. Both the groups were instructed regarding the management of gastroschisis. The control group received a PowerPoint presentation, whereas the intervention group was guided only by an objectives list and a gastroschisis model. Students were evaluated using a multiple-choice pretest (Pre-Test MC) immediately before the teaching session, a posttest (Post-Test MC) following the session, and a follow-up test (Follow-Up MC) at 3 months. A practical examination (PE), which tested simple skills and management decisions, was administered at the end of the clerkship (Initial PE) and at 3 months after clerkship (Follow-Up PE). Students were also given a self-evaluation immediately following the Post-Test MC to gauge satisfaction and comfort level in the management of gastroschisis. Setting University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and the Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA. Participants A total of 49 third- and fourth-year medical students who were enrolled in the general surgery clerkship were eligible for this study. Enrollment into the study was completely voluntary. Of the 49 eligible students, 36 students agreed to participate in the study, and 27 completed the study. Results Mean scores for the Pre-Test MC, Post-Test MC, and Follow-Up MC were similar between the control and intervention groups. In the control group, the Post-Test MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (8.92 ± 0.79 vs 4.00 ± 1.04, p < 0.0001), whereas the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly lower than Post-Test MC scores (7.17 ± 1.75 vs 8.92 ± 0.79, p = 0.005). In the control group, the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (7.17 ± 1.75 vs 4.00 ± 1.04, p < 0.0001). Analysis of variance for all control group MC examinations had a p < 0.0001. In the intervention group, the Post-Test MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (8.33 ± 1.23 vs 4.60 ± 1.55, p < 0.0001), whereas the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly lower than Post-Test MC scores (7.13 ± 1.77 vs 8.33 ± 1.23, p = 0.04). In the intervention group, the Follow-Up MC scores were significantly greater than Pre-Test MC scores (7.13 ± 1.77 vs 4.60 ± 1.55, p = 0.0002). Analysis of variance for all intervention group MC examinations had a p < 0.0001. Mean scores for the Initial PE were significantly higher for the intervention group compared with the control group’s score (7.47 ± 1.68 vs 5.25 ± 2.34, p = 0.008). Mean scores for the Follow-Up PE were significantly higher for the intervention group compared with the control group’s score (7.87 ± 1.77 vs 5.83 ± 2.04, p = 0.005). A comparison of Initial PE vs Follow-Up PE was not significant in either group. Students in the intervention group were more comfortable in the immediate management of gastroschisis and placement of a silo and felt that the educational experience was more worthwhile than students in the control group did. Conclusions After a single instructional session, there was a significant difference in the students’ scores between the control and the intervention groups on both administrations of the PEs. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any administration of the MC examinations. This seems to suggest that DBL may lead to better practical knowledge and potentially improved long-term knowledge retention when compared with LBL. Students in the DBL group also felt more comfortable with the management of gastroschisis and were more satisfied with the educational session.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>26572094</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.09.016</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1931-7204 |
ispartof | Journal of surgical education, 2016-03, Vol.73 (2), p.250-257 |
issn | 1931-7204 1878-7452 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1765109615 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Competency-Based Education education Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods Educational Measurement Female gastroschisis Gastroschisis - therapy Humans Infant, Newborn Interpersonal and Communication Skills Iowa Learning lecture-based learning Male Manikins Medical Knowledge Patient Care Practice-Based Learning and Improvement problem-based learning Prospective Studies simulation simulation-based learning Surgery |
title | Comparison of Lecture-Based Learning vs Discussion-Based Learning in Undergraduate Medical Students |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T13%3A38%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Lecture-Based%20Learning%20vs%20Discussion-Based%20Learning%20in%20Undergraduate%20Medical%20Students&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20surgical%20education&rft.au=Zhao,%20Beiqun,%20MD&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=250&rft.epage=257&rft.pages=250-257&rft.issn=1931-7204&rft.eissn=1878-7452&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.09.016&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1765109615%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1765109615&rft_id=info:pmid/26572094&rft_els_id=S193172041500238X&rfr_iscdi=true |