Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1 Framework for the Implementation of a Continuum of Neurologic Education in Undergraduate Medical Education That Focuses on Neuroscience Knowledge Generation Within a Clinical Frame in the Preclinical Years and the Development of Clinical Expertise With a Grounding in Neuroscientific Principles in Clinical Training
- Figure 2 Student Opinions of the Team-Based Learning Sessions
GRAT = group readiness assessment test; IRAT = individual readiness assessment test.
Tables
- Table 1
Structure of Neuropathology Learning Days Preimplementation (1A) and Postimplementation (1B) of the Curricular Changes
1A: Preimplementation structure 1B: Postimplementation structure Time Description/schedule Time Description 8:00–9:00 Lecture Neuropathology topic 1
Lecturer: Neuropathologist8:00–9:00 Lecture Neuropathology topic 1
Lecturer: Neurologist/Neurosurgeon9:00–10:00 Neuropathology topic 2
Lecturer: Neuropathologist9:00–10:00 Neuropathology topic 2
Lecturer: Neurologist/neurosurgeon10:00–11:00 Lab Neuropathology laboratory topic 1
Format: Slide presentation10:00–10:10 TBL (2 topics) IRAT (8 questions) 10:10–10:25 GRAT (8 questions) 11:00–12:00 Neuropathology laboratory topic 2
Format: Slide presentation10:25–10:45 IRAT/GRAT review 10:45–11:30 Application exercises 11:30–11:50 Application exercise review Abbreviations: GRAT = group readiness assessment test; IRAT = individual readiness assessment test; TBL = team-based learning.
- Table 2
Illustrative Quotes on the Most Prominent Positive and Negative Opinions of the TBL Sessions From the End-of-Course Survey and Semistructured Interviews
Theme Illustrative quote(s) Positive comments High-quality, concise syllabi The TBL syllabi created by [course director] were incredibly helpful
The prereadings for TBLs that were written by faculty were awesome, and I referred back to these many timesReinforced learning TBL was a highlight of planned redundancy with reading followed by lecture
I loved the laboratory activities and TBL exercises to supplement the lecture material
The TBLs were directly relevant and dealt with material we've learned beforeLow-stake quiz performance I really liked that the TBLs were extra credit points. Otherwise, I believe this would increase stress and competitive atmosphere
The stakes of quiz performance felt just right. It was enough to push me to complete the prereading, but not so high to make me worry about it every Tuesday and ThursdayConstructive comments Excessive length of textbook reading The textbook readings were frankly too long, and it was hard to weed through to figure out what was actually important to know
I think many people did not read the super long textbook readings that were assigned…Redundancy of quiz completion and review Going over all the answers as a large group after we just went through each one as a small TBL group seemed overly redundant
Sometimes it just felt like the instructor was reading the answers back to us a third timeInconsistency of facilitators I wonder if there may have been discrepancies in opinions in students who learned from [facilitator 1] vs [facilitator 2]
I think there were some inconsistencies between information taught… in one room but not the otherAbbreviation: TBL = team-based learning.
- Table 3
Course Performance Comparison Between the 2020 (Preimplementation) Cohort and the 2021 (Postimplementation) Cohort
2020 (n = 104) 2021 (n = 104) p Value Final course grade, mean (SD) % 82.92 (6.24) 82.47 (6.22) 0.61 NBME subject test, mean (SD) % 81.20 (8.22) 80.25 (7.93) 0.37 NBME pathology subsection, mean (SD) % 82.60 (11.2) 83.94 (9.5) 0.36 Abbreviation: NBME = National Board of Medical Examiners.
Name Location Contribution Christopher G. Tarolli, MD, MSEd Department of Neurology, and Center for Health + Technology, University of Rochester, NY Drafting/revision of the article for content, including medical writing for content; major role in the acquisition of data; and study concept or design; analysis or interpretation of data Ralph F. Józefowicz, MD Department of Neurology, University of Rochester, NY Drafting/revision of the article for content, including medical writing for content; major role in the acquisition of data; and study concept or design
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Use of Whole-Genome Sequencing for Mitochondrial Disease Diagnosis
Dr. Robert Pitceathly and Dr. William Macken