Rachel S Casas, Jennifer L Cooper, Susan A Glod, Eliana V Hempel
{"title":"住院医师对同步直播教学的看法:一项定性研究。","authors":"Rachel S Casas, Jennifer L Cooper, Susan A Glod, Eliana V Hempel","doi":"10.1177/23821205241281350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical education programs were challenged to optimize learning while balancing social interaction with exposure risk. In response, our internal medicine (IM) residency program transitioned to \"simulcast\" educational sessions. In simulcast sessions, multiple small groups of learners met in person in separate rooms and connected to the large-group session via videoconferencing. This qualitative study describes IM residents' perceptions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of learning in simulcast compared to virtual and in-person settings during the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Categorical IM residents at Penn State during the academic year 2020-2021 were invited to participate. Eligible residents participated in one 30-min virtual, semistructured focus group. We used inductive thematic coding to analyze resident responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-eight percent (<i>n</i> = 29/60) of invited residents participated in focus groups. In the simulcast setting, participants felt more accountability to participate in their small groups compared to a larger group or virtual setting. Educational experiences varied based upon facilitator skill level. Overall, in-person settings were preferred to virtual, when possible, due to increased social connection. Respondents identified educator enthusiasm and presentation quality as key to engagement regardless of setting.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Residents had variable responses to the simulcast setting based upon their comfort with participation by group size, desire for social connection, and perception of teaching strategies. The key identified pitfalls to simulcast teaching were resident discomfort in small groups, heterogeneous learning experience, lack of engagement, and technology challenges. These pitfalls can be mitigated through strategic distribution of learners in groups, trained facilitators, and interactive teaching modalities. Given that simulcast and mixed (simulcast, virtual, and in-person) teaching settings are here to stay postpandemic, anticipating pitfalls and creating adaptable educational content that translates in multiple settings is crucial.</p>","PeriodicalId":45121,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","volume":"11 ","pages":"23821205241281350"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418307/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Resident Perceptions of Simulcast Teaching: A Qualitative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel S Casas, Jennifer L Cooper, Susan A Glod, Eliana V Hempel\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23821205241281350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical education programs were challenged to optimize learning while balancing social interaction with exposure risk. In response, our internal medicine (IM) residency program transitioned to \\\"simulcast\\\" educational sessions. In simulcast sessions, multiple small groups of learners met in person in separate rooms and connected to the large-group session via videoconferencing. This qualitative study describes IM residents' perceptions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of learning in simulcast compared to virtual and in-person settings during the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Categorical IM residents at Penn State during the academic year 2020-2021 were invited to participate. Eligible residents participated in one 30-min virtual, semistructured focus group. We used inductive thematic coding to analyze resident responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-eight percent (<i>n</i> = 29/60) of invited residents participated in focus groups. In the simulcast setting, participants felt more accountability to participate in their small groups compared to a larger group or virtual setting. Educational experiences varied based upon facilitator skill level. Overall, in-person settings were preferred to virtual, when possible, due to increased social connection. Respondents identified educator enthusiasm and presentation quality as key to engagement regardless of setting.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Residents had variable responses to the simulcast setting based upon their comfort with participation by group size, desire for social connection, and perception of teaching strategies. The key identified pitfalls to simulcast teaching were resident discomfort in small groups, heterogeneous learning experience, lack of engagement, and technology challenges. These pitfalls can be mitigated through strategic distribution of learners in groups, trained facilitators, and interactive teaching modalities. Given that simulcast and mixed (simulcast, virtual, and in-person) teaching settings are here to stay postpandemic, anticipating pitfalls and creating adaptable educational content that translates in multiple settings is crucial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"23821205241281350\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418307/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205241281350\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205241281350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Resident Perceptions of Simulcast Teaching: A Qualitative Study.
Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical education programs were challenged to optimize learning while balancing social interaction with exposure risk. In response, our internal medicine (IM) residency program transitioned to "simulcast" educational sessions. In simulcast sessions, multiple small groups of learners met in person in separate rooms and connected to the large-group session via videoconferencing. This qualitative study describes IM residents' perceptions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of learning in simulcast compared to virtual and in-person settings during the pandemic.
Methods: Categorical IM residents at Penn State during the academic year 2020-2021 were invited to participate. Eligible residents participated in one 30-min virtual, semistructured focus group. We used inductive thematic coding to analyze resident responses.
Results: Forty-eight percent (n = 29/60) of invited residents participated in focus groups. In the simulcast setting, participants felt more accountability to participate in their small groups compared to a larger group or virtual setting. Educational experiences varied based upon facilitator skill level. Overall, in-person settings were preferred to virtual, when possible, due to increased social connection. Respondents identified educator enthusiasm and presentation quality as key to engagement regardless of setting.
Conclusion: Residents had variable responses to the simulcast setting based upon their comfort with participation by group size, desire for social connection, and perception of teaching strategies. The key identified pitfalls to simulcast teaching were resident discomfort in small groups, heterogeneous learning experience, lack of engagement, and technology challenges. These pitfalls can be mitigated through strategic distribution of learners in groups, trained facilitators, and interactive teaching modalities. Given that simulcast and mixed (simulcast, virtual, and in-person) teaching settings are here to stay postpandemic, anticipating pitfalls and creating adaptable educational content that translates in multiple settings is crucial.