Data.

Confidence and attitude

• PEREPEX makes it possible to have an active discussion of primary research literature in a large classroom with minimal impact on the classroom time. In our case, each student read and presented four papers and was exposed to twelve presentations over the semester, with nearly zero classroom time impact. Students show clear gains in enthusiasm and confidence. The initial surveys performed in the beginning of the semester focused on existing level of comfort with primary literature and understanding of the role cell biology in modern clinical sciences.

• Over 80% of students reported that the benefits of reviewing presentations created by peers are clear to them, and nearly 70% agreed that learning from presentations created by peers is a productive way to learn. Over 70% report that they would rather submit a narrated presentation than a written report, and nearly 70% would prefer to review a narrated presentation rather than a written report In our case, each student read and presented four papers and was exposed to twelve presentations over the semester, with nearly zero classroom time impact.

• Follow-up surveys performed at the end of semester focused on gains. Over 90% of students report great or moderate gains understanding of the role of the specific discipline in modern biomedical and clinical science, with zero students reporting no gain. Nearly 90% of students report great or moderate gains in understanding of how cell biology explains disease pathogenesis and in understanding of how cell biologists make conclusions regarding the role of specific molecules in cells, with zero students reporting no gains. 100% of students reported that reading modern research literature was greatly or moderate useful , and over 70% reported that making or reviewing narrated presentations was greatly or moderately useful. The student comments mention qualitative changes in understand of cell biology and scientific process.

Prediction

• PEREPEX tracks participation and may predict student performance. Our statistics suggests that participation correlates with performance in the midterm and final exams. The data show clear correlation between the number of reviews submitted by each student and the score obtained in each exam. Our preliminary analysis show R value for the correlation between midterm score and the number of submitted reviews was 0.45, between midterm score and the number of submitted presentations 0.32, between final score and the number of submitted reviews was 0.30 and between final score and the number of submitted presentations 0.32. We think that the Presentation exchange participation scores are a predictor of the student performance. The scores may be used for formative assessment.

Learning gains

• We have analyzed the effect of Presentation exchange on each student group using pre-and post-assignment tests. Each test contained a battery of questions (2-6 per paper) covering the general and the specific knowledge pertaining to each paper. The students were quizzed via a web-based interface using the multiple-choice model involving one correct, three incorrect answers and one “I do not know” answer. Participation was in the 70% range. Presentation exchange exposure is associated with fewer incorrect and “I do not know” answers in the entire class.

• A feature of our approach is that during each assessment the student population contains the students who have read and presented the specific paper (Presenter), who watched the presentation on that paper (Reviewer) and those have not read or viewed it (Naïve). Therefore, our approach, and every educational effort utilizing this approach, automatically contains control groups. We analyzed the learning gains in the Presenters, Reviewers and the Naïve groups. Our assumption was that if Presentation exchange causes learning gains then the students who were in the Naïve group regarding a specific paper will show smaller knowledge gain in the material pertaining to it. Our data show that among the Presenters and the Reviewers the rate of correct answers was higher and the rate of “I do not know” answers was lower than among the Naïve. In 60-80% of cases the Presenters and the Reviewers gave better answers than the Naïve.

Therefore, 1) the Reviewers learn from the Presenters, and 2) Presentation exchange is an effective learning tool.