Abstract
Small group teaching has been extensively employed in the teaching of human anatomy. Small group discussions are utilized in laboratory classes, tutorials, team-based learning, and problem-based learning. Tutorial classes reinforce what students have been taught during lectures and what they have observed during laboratory classes. Teaching in a small group setting, such as a tutorial, encourages participation of students, improves interpersonal and communication skills, reaches out to students with different learning styles, and helps in developing accountability to others. A well-organized small group teaching session is dependent not only on the content for discussion but also on the group dynamics. In this regard, the tutor plays a crucial role in facilitating group dynamics during small group discussions. In a tutorial setting, the tutor should be student centered, ensure balanced interaction among students while trying to involve every student during the discussions, and establish a conducive environment for learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bay BH, Ling EA. Teaching of anatomy in the new millennium. Singap Med J. 2007;48(3):182–3.
Ahmed K, Rowland S, Patel V, Khan RS, Ashrafian H, Davies DC, et al. Is the structure of anatomy curriculum adequate for safe medical practice? Surgeon. 2010;8(6):318–24.
Ang ET, Sugand K, Hartman M, Seow CS, Bay BH, Abrahams P. Singapore’s anatomical future: quo vadis? Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(4):234–40.
McBride JM, Drake RL. National survey on anatomical sciences in medical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2018;11(1):7–14.
Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. An update on the status of anatomical sciences education in United States Medical Schools. Anat Sci Educ. 2014;7(4):321–5.
Patel KM, Moxham BJ. Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change. Clin Anat. 2006;19(2):132–41.
Rizzolo LJ, Rando WC, O’Brien MK, Haims AH, Abrahams JJ, Stewart WB. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an innovative anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(3):109–20.
Michael J. What makes physiology hard for students to learn? Results of a faculty survey. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31(1):34–40.
Arroyo-Jimenez Mdel M, Marcos P, Martinez-Marcos A, Artacho-Perula E, Blaizot X, Munoz M, et al. Gross anatomy dissections and self-directed learning in medicine. Clin Anat. 2005;18(5):385–91.
Nieder GL, Parmelee DX, Stolfi A, Hudes PD. Team-based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat. 2005;18(1):56–63.
Chan LK, Ganguly PK. Evaluation of small-group teaching in human gross anatomy in a Caribbean medical school. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(1):19–22.
Carvalho H, West CA. Voluntary participation in an active learning exercise leads to a better understanding of physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011;35(1):53–8.
Bobby Z, Koner BC, Sridhar MG, Nandeesha H, Renuka P, Setia S, et al. Formulation of questions followed by small group discussion as a revision exercise at the end of a teaching module in biochemistry. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2007;35(1):45–8.
Ward PJ. First year medical students’ approaches to study and their outcomes in a gross anatomy course. Clin Anat. 2011;24(1):120–7.
Bockers A, Jerg-Bretzke L, Lamp C, Brinkmann A, Traue HC, Bockers TM. The gross anatomy course: an analysis of its importance. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3(1):3–11.
McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ. 2006;40(3):243–53.
Older J. Anatomy: a must for teaching the next generation. Surgeon. 2004;2(2):79–90.
Pawlina W. Professionalism and anatomy: how do these two terms define our role? Clin Anat. 2006;19(5):391–2.
Wong WC, Tay SS. The teaching of anatomy: the first hundred years (1905–2005). Ann Acad Med Singap. 2005;34(6):72C–8C.
Michaelsen LH, Fink RH, Knight A. Designing effective group activities: lessons for classroom teaching and faculty development. In: Dezure D, editor. To improve the academy, vol. 16. Stillwater: New Forums Press and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education; 1997. p. 373–97.
Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Holland BK. Modified use of team-based learning for effective delivery of medical gross anatomy and embryology. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(1):3–9.
Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. A survey of student perceptions of team-based learning in anatomy curriculum: favorable views unrelated to grades. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(4):150–5.
Woods NN, Neville AJ, Levinson AJ, Howey EH, Oczkowski WJ, Norman GR. The value of basic science in clinical diagnosis. Acad Med. 2006;81(10 Suppl):S124–7.
DiLullo C, Morris HJ, Kriebel RM. Clinical competencies and the basic sciences: an online case tutorial paradigm for delivery of integrated clinical and basic science content. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(5):238–43.
Spaulding WB. The undergraduate medical curriculum (1969 model): McMaster university. Can Med Assoc J. 1969;100(14):659–64.
Bate E, Taylor DC. Twelve tips on how to survive PBL as a medical student. Med Teach. 2013;35(2):95–100.
Gurpinar E, Kulac E, Tetik C, Akdogan I, Mamakli S. Do learning approaches of medical students affect their satisfaction with problem-based learning? Adv Physiol Educ. 2013;37(1):85–8.
Jones RW. Learning and teaching in small groups: characteristics, benefits, problems and approaches. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(4):587–92.
De Haes JC, Oort FJ, Hulsman RL. Summative assessment of medical students’ communication skills and professional attitudes through observation in clinical practice. Med Teach. 2005;27(7):583–9.
Brown B. Myths and realities No. 26. Teaching style vs learning style. Educational Resources Information Center: Columbus; 2003.
Alghasham AA. Effect of students’ learning styles on classroom performance in problem-based learning. Med Teach. 2012;34(Suppl 1):S14–9.
Moro C, Štromberga Z, Raikos A, Stirling A. The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2017;10(6):549–59.
Lee EA-L, Wong KW. A review of using virtual reality for learning. In: Pan Z, Cheok AD, Müller W, editors. Transactions on edutainment I. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2008. p. 231–41.
Lee GH, Lin CS, Lin YH. How experienced tutors facilitate tutorial dynamics in PBL groups. Med Teach. 2013;35(2):e935–42.
Azer SA. Facilitation of students’ discussion in problem-based learning tutorials to create mechanisms: the use of five key questions. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2005;34(8):492–8.
Frambach JM, Driessen EW, Chan LC, van der Vleuten CP. Rethinking the globalisation of problem-based learning: how culture challenges self-directed learning. Med Educ. 2012;46(8):738–47.
Joy S, Kolb DA. Are there cultural differences in learning style? Int J Intercult Relat. 2009;33(1):69–85.
Edmunds S, Brown G. Effective small group learning: AMEE guide No. 48. Med Teach. 2010;32(9):715–26.
Kane CM. Fishbowl training in group process. J Spec Group Work. 1995;20(3):183–8.
Jaques D. Teaching small groups. BMJ. 2003;326(7387):492–4.
Eitington JE. The winning trainer. 4th ed. New York: Routledge; 2011.
Fry H, Ketteridge S, Marshall S. A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2009.
Race P. The lecturer’s toolkit. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge; 2007.
Tricio J, Montt J, Orsini C, Gracia B, Pampin F, Quinteros C, et al. Student experiences of two small group learning-teaching formats: Seminar and fishbowl. Eur J Dent Educ. 2019;23:151–58.
Sarvary MA, Gifford KM. The benefits of a real-time web-based response system for enhancing engaged learning in classrooms and public science events. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ. 2017;15(2):E13–6.
Kerns SC. Technological tools for library user education: one library’s experience. Med Ref Serv Q. 2007;26(3):105–14.
Dhaliwal HK, Allen M, Kang J, Bates C, Hodge T. The effect of using an audience response system on learning, motivation and information retention in the orthodontic teaching of undergraduate dental students: a cross-over trial. J Orthod. 2015;42(2):123–35.
Barrows HS. The tutorial process. Springfield: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine; 1988.
Evans DJ, Cuffe T. Near-peer teaching in anatomy: an approach for deeper learning. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(5):227–33.
Duran CE, Bahena EN, Rodriguez Mde L, Baca GJ, Uresti AS, Elizondo-Omana RE, et al. Near-peer teaching in an anatomy course with a low faculty-to-student ratio. Anat Sci Educ. 2012;5(3):171–6.
Joslin S. Perceptions of anatomy education—a student’s view. Anat Sci Educ. 2008;1(3):133–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bay, B.H., Tay, S.S.W., Srinivasan, D.K. (2020). Facilitating Small Group Learning. In: Chan, L.K., Pawlina, W. (eds) Teaching Anatomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43283-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43283-6_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43282-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43283-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)