| Summary: | Mubariz Ahmad, Nourah AlHennawi, Maaham AhmedManchester Medical School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UKWe read with great interest the article by Inra et al1 which discusses the benefits of using an active learning curriculum to improve faculty teaching skills and help fellows retain more knowledge compared to traditional teaching methods. As current medical students, we can vouch for the effectiveness of this approach in improving the way material can be taught, hence would like to offer our perspective on this. Authors’ replyJennifer A Inra,1,2 Stephen Pelletier,2 Navin L Kumar,1,2 Edward L Barnes,3,4 Helen M Shields1,21Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 2Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 3Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 4University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USAWe appreciate the thoughtful comments received from Ahmed et al regarding our article “An active learning curriculum improves fellows’ knowledge and faculty teaching”.1 The educational literature supports the recommendation that the optimal timing for a lecture is 10-15 minutes, as a student’s attention may wander or wane after that time.2 This ideal time limit stems from a paperby Hartley in 1978, which recommends this optimal time frame.3View the original paper by Inra and colleagues
|
|---|
