| Title |
Longitudinal evaluation of a pilot e-portfolio-based supervision programme for final year medical students: views of students, supervisors and new graduates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Education, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12909-017-0981-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gillian H. S. Vance, Bryan Burford, Ethan Shapiro, Richard Price |
| Abstract |
Little is known about how best to implement portfolio-based learning in medical school. We evaluated the introduction of a formative e-portfolio-based supervision pilot for final year medical students by seeking views of students, supervisors and graduates on use and educational effects. Students and supervisors were surveyed by questionnaire, with free text comments invited. Interviews were held with new graduates in their first Foundation Programme placement. Most students used the e-portfolio (54%) and met with their supervisor (62%) 'once or twice' only. Students had more negative views: 22% agreed that the pilot was beneficial, while most supervisors thought that e-portfolio (72%) and supervision (86%) were a 'good idea'. More students reported supervision meetings benefited learning (49%) and professional development (55%) than the e-portfolio did (16%; 28%). Only 47% of students felt 'prepared' for future educational processes, though graduates noted benefits for navigating and understanding e-portfolio building and supervision. Factors limiting engagement reflected 'burden', while supervision meetings and early experience of postgraduate processes offered educational value. Final year students have negative attitudes to a formative e-portfolio, though benefits for easing the educational transition are recognised by graduates. Measures to minimize time, repetition and redundancy of processes may encourage use. Engagement is influenced by the supervisor relationship and educational value may be best achieved by supporting supervisors to develop strategies to facilitate, and motivate self-directed learning processes in undergraduates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 6% |
| Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 21% |
| Unknown | 29 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 35% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,052,327
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,543
of 3,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,164
of 317,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#31
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 317,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.