Abstract
Introduction
Condensed preclinical timelines in medical education create high workload, necessitating efficient, active learning strategies to maximize knowledge retention and long-term understanding. To address these concerns, PEP was developed utilizing evidence-based scaffolding, from the "Make it Stick" cognitive framework. PEP incorporates weekly faculty led supplemental sessions featuring open-ended practice questions emphasizing peer-to-peer instruction. Prior data showed high voluntary student participation, with 92.9% (26/28 students) of Medical Masters (MM) and 86% (130/151 students) of Medical Doctor (MD) students enrolled. Because broad meta-analytic data previously established a positive correlation between high engagement and academic success, PEP’s high participation shows significant academic promise. However, less is known about which specific elements drive engagement. This study investigates which elements PEP students identify as most critical to their academic performance.
Methods
A mixed-methods study evaluated student perceptions of PEP. An attendee feedback survey (27.6% response rate) underwent quantitative and qualitative analyses. Institutional course evaluation comments including "PEP" were also extracted. Qualitative data were coded using an inductive and deductive approach using a framework encompassing eight core domains from the “Make it Stick” principles: effort, retrieval practice, interleaving, peer-to-peer learning, reflection, growth mindset, learning tools, and psychological safety.
Results
Analysis of PEP course evaluations and survey revealed that among the evaluated metrics, retrieval practice (n=4.72/5.0) and creating a safe space (n=4.20/5.0) emerged as the most critical elements, receiving the highest frequency of "extremely important" designations. Peer-to-peer learning (n=4.12/5), reflection (n=4.17/5), and interleaving (n=4.17/5) were rated as highly or moderately important. Furthermore, most respondents agreed that PEP sessions provided a collaborative and supportive learning environment (4.79/5), using “safe space” and “inclusive” in comments and strongly agreed that the program successfully encouraged higher-order thinking (n =4.74/5) using coding such as “integrate material” and “apply knowledge”.
Conclusion
PEP drives high voluntary engagement by reducing the cognitive load of condensed learning timelines through retrieval, fostering higher-order thinking within a collaborative, psychologically safe space. Unboxing student preferences provides actionable insights for accelerated medical curriculum design. A future longitudinal study is planned to further explore these findings and objectively evaluate PEP participation on academic outcomes.