Table 3 Evaluation of the course parts arthroscopy and sonography after 3 weeks
Evaluation (Likert-Scale, LS, 1–5)# after course end | Arthroscopy | Ultrasound | p |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of evaluation (n) | Â | Â | 201 |
The lecturer was competent | 1.3 (0.7) | 1.7 (0.9) | < 0.001 |
The lecture was fun | 1.5 (0.8) | 1.5 (0.7) | 0.816 |
I have learned alot | 1.9 (1.0) | 1.9 (0.9) | 0.552 |
Theory and practice were well combined | 1.6 (0.9) | 1.9 (0.9) | 0.001 |
The size of the group was optimal | 2.3 (1.2) | 2.3 (1.3) | 0.631 |
The interaction between the group and the lecturer was good | 1.6 (0.8) | 1.6 (0.8) | 0.691 |
Multidimensional augmentation in anatomical education makes sense | 1.7 (0.9) | 1.8 (0.9) | 0.315 |
Structures were difficult to identify | 3.2 (1.2) | 2.6 (1.2) | < 0.001 |
Many of my questions stayed unanswered | 3.9 (0.9) | 3.6 (1.0) | 0.004 |
I would need more lectures for deepening | 2.1 (1.1) | 1.8 (1.1 | < 0.001 |
Generally the PAL concept is a good teaching method | 1.8 (1.0) | 1.8 (1.0) | 0.991 |
Only a medical expert can teach these contents | 3.2 (1.3) | 3.6 (1.1) | < 0.001 |
Generally the contents were too comprehensive | 4.0 (0.9) | 3.7 (1.0) | 0.003 |
I could improve my anatomical knowledge | 1.9 (1.0) | 2.3 (1.1) | 0.002 |
The durability of my anatomical knowledge is raised | 1.7 (0.9) | 1.7 (0.9) | 0.624 |
My spatial imagination was improved | 1.6 (0.9) | 2.0 (1.1) | < 0.001 |
I was better prepared for the practical exam (OSCE) | 2.7 (1.2) | 2.8 (1.2) | 0.117 |
This lecture should later be introduced in the study | 3.6 (1.3) | 3.6 (1.3) | 0.202 |
ASK and MSUS awaked my interest in surgery | 2.4 (1.1) | 2.4 (1.0) | 0.899 |