Objective:

We aimed to determine if academic performance was different in students who self-selected to participate in virtual small group discussions, compared to students who engaged in traditional in-person small group discussions, in a first-year medical school neuroscience course.

Background:

Incorporating virtual instruction into the medical curriculum has been a longstanding subject of study and has increasingly been required due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous literature suggests that exchange and communication patterns during learning may be stunted on virtual platforms. In 2021, for the pre-clinical neuroscience course, the Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine gave students the choice to engage in small group sessions either in-person or virtually. These sessions have been used to facilitate case discussions to reinforce course material.

Design/Methods:

This is a retrospective analysis of academic performance in the 2021 neuroscience course. Students self-selected to participate either in-person or virtually for small group discussions. Academic performance was measured by scores on the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) shelf exam and professor-written final exam, as well as weighted final course grades. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare data from the two cohorts.

Results:

Of the 51 students, 23 chose the in-person cohort and 27 chose the virtual cohort. One student switched cohorts part way through the course and was excluded from analysis. Overall, when comparing the in-person and virtual cohorts, there was no difference in scores for the NBME shelf exam (87.13% vs 85.33%, p = 0.48), professor-written final exam (87.13% vs 86.22%, p = 0.55), or weighted course grades (87.56% vs 87.09%, p = 0.71). 

Conclusions:

Students who self-selected to engage in virtual discussions of neuroscience course material performed comparably to their in-person counterparts. This suggests that virtual platforms may be appropriate for holding small group discussions within the medical curriculum.