PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: We define teacher wait time (TWT) as a pause between a teacher question and the following response given by a student. TWT is valuable because it gives students time to activate prior knowledge and reflect on possible answers to teacher questions. We seek to gain initial insights into the phenomenon of TWT in medical education and give commensurate recommendations to clinical teachers.
METHODS: We observed n = 719 teacher questions followed by wait time. These were video-recorded in 29 case-based seminars in undergraduate medical education in the areas of surgery and internal medicine. The seminars were taught by 19 different clinical teachers. The videos were coded with satisfactory reliability. Time-to-event data analysis was used to explore TWT overall and independently of question types.
RESULTS: In our sample of case-based seminars, about 10% of all teacher questions were followed by TWT. While the median duration of TWT was 4.41 s, we observed large variation between different teachers (median between 2.88 and 10.96 s). Based on our results, we recommend that clinical teachers wait for at least five, but not longer than 10-12 s after initial questions. For follow-up and reproduction questions, we recommend shorter wait times of 5-8 s.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides insights into the frequency and duration of TWT and its dependence on prior questions in case-based seminars. Our results provide clinical teachers with guidance on how to use TWT as an easily accessible tool that gives students time to reflect on and respond to teacher questions.
METHODS: We observed n = 719 teacher questions followed by wait time. These were video-recorded in 29 case-based seminars in undergraduate medical education in the areas of surgery and internal medicine. The seminars were taught by 19 different clinical teachers. The videos were coded with satisfactory reliability. Time-to-event data analysis was used to explore TWT overall and independently of question types.
RESULTS: In our sample of case-based seminars, about 10% of all teacher questions were followed by TWT. While the median duration of TWT was 4.41 s, we observed large variation between different teachers (median between 2.88 and 10.96 s). Based on our results, we recommend that clinical teachers wait for at least five, but not longer than 10-12 s after initial questions. For follow-up and reproduction questions, we recommend shorter wait times of 5-8 s.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides insights into the frequency and duration of TWT and its dependence on prior questions in case-based seminars. Our results provide clinical teachers with guidance on how to use TWT as an easily accessible tool that gives students time to reflect on and respond to teacher questions.
摘要：
背景：我们将教师等待时间（TWT）定义为教师问题与学生给出的以下回答之间的停顿。TWT是有价值的，因为它给学生时间来激活先前的知识和反思可能的答案，教师的问题。我们寻求对TWT在医学教育中的现象获得初步见解，并向临床教师提供相应的建议。
方法：我们观察到n=719个教师问题，然后是等待时间。这些是在外科和内科领域的29个基于案例的本科医学教育研讨会中录制的视频。研讨会由19位不同的临床老师教授。这些视频的编码可靠性令人满意。时间至事件数据分析用于全面探索TWT，独立于问题类型。
结果：在我们的基于案例的研讨会样本中，所有教师问题中约有10％被TWT跟进。行波管的中位持续时间为4.41s，我们观察到不同教师之间的差异很大(中位数在2.88和10.96s之间)。根据我们的结果,我们建议临床老师至少等五个，但不超过10-12秒后的初始问题。对于后续和复制问题，我们建议缩短5-8秒的等待时间。
结论：本研究提供了有关TWT的频率和持续时间及其对基于案例的研讨会中先前问题的依赖性的见解。我们的研究结果为临床教师提供了如何使用TWT作为一种易于访问的工具的指导，让学生有时间反思和回答教师的问题。
方法：我们观察到n=719个教师问题，然后是等待时间。这些是在外科和内科领域的29个基于案例的本科医学教育研讨会中录制的视频。研讨会由19位不同的临床老师教授。这些视频的编码可靠性令人满意。时间至事件数据分析用于全面探索TWT，独立于问题类型。
结果：在我们的基于案例的研讨会样本中，所有教师问题中约有10％被TWT跟进。行波管的中位持续时间为4.41s，我们观察到不同教师之间的差异很大(中位数在2.88和10.96s之间)。根据我们的结果,我们建议临床老师至少等五个，但不超过10-12秒后的初始问题。对于后续和复制问题，我们建议缩短5-8秒的等待时间。
结论：本研究提供了有关TWT的频率和持续时间及其对基于案例的研讨会中先前问题的依赖性的见解。我们的研究结果为临床教师提供了如何使用TWT作为一种易于访问的工具的指导，让学生有时间反思和回答教师的问题。
