↓ Skip to main content

A survey study on student preferences regarding pathology teaching in Germany: a call for curricular modernization

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
A survey study on student preferences regarding pathology teaching in Germany: a call for curricular modernization
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0381-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florian E. M. Herrmann, Markus Lenski, Julius Steffen, Magdalena Kailuweit, Marc Nikolaus, Rajasekaran Koteeswaran, Andreas Sailer, Anna Hanszke, Maximilian Wintergerst, Sissi Dittmer, Doris Mayr, Orsolya Genzel-Boroviczény, Diann S. Eley, Martin R. Fischer

Abstract

Pathology is a discipline that provides the basis of the understanding of disease in medicine. The past decades have seen a decline in the emphasis laid on pathology teaching in medical schools and outdated pathology curricula have worsened the situation. Student opinions and thoughts are central to the questions of whether and how such curricula should be modernized. A survey was conducted among 1018 German medical students regarding their preferences in pathology teaching modalities and their satisfaction with lecture-based courses. A qualitative analysis was performed comparing a recently modernized pathology curriculum with a traditional lecture-based curriculum. The differences in modalities of teaching used were investigated. Student satisfaction with the lecture-based curriculum positively correlated with student grades (spearman's correlation coefficient 0.24). Additionally, students with lower grades supported changing the curriculum (spearman's correlation coefficient 0.47). The majority supported virtual microscopy, autopsies, seminars and podcasts as preferred didactic methods. The data supports the implementation of a pathology curriculum where tutorials, autopsies and supplementary computer-based learning tools play important roles.

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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 90 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Student > Master 13 14%
Other 9 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Psychology 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 20 22%
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 01 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,412,793
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,736
of 3,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,229
of 267,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#27
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,317 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 267,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.