ABSTRACT:
The perception of the learning process is shaped by individual experiences and related to the academic environment. This article aimed to evaluate the perception of the educational environment of medical students linked to the peer-mentoring group GEDAAM (Study Group on Didactics Applied to Medical Learning) at the Federal University of Minas Gerais. The data come from a cross-sectional study with 129 members of GEDAAM. The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) scale was used to assess the perception of the educational environment. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed (Chi-square test). For almost all assessed domains, the students' perception was more positive than negative (Global score = 108.41). The longer the length of stay at GEDAAM, the worse the Global perception of the educational environment. It is suggested that participating in GEDAAM contributes to a more critical view of the medical teaching environment.
Keywords:
medical education; mentoring; educational evaluation
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Source: Created by the authors.a. Reference values: Individual mean score < 2: problematic; between 2.1 and 3: weak; between 3.01 and 3.4: strong; > 3.5: very strong.b. Reference values: 0-12 (very bad); 13-24 (more negative than positive perception); 25-36 (more positive than negative perception); 37-48 (fully positive).c. Reference values: 0-11 (very bad); 12-22 (in need of training); 23-33 (in the right direction); 34-44 (model professors).
Source: Created by the authors.a. Reference values: Individual mean score < 2: problematic; between 2.1 and 3: weak; between 3.01 and 3.4: strong; > 3.5: very strong.b. Reference values: 0-08 (feeling of total failure); 09-16 (many negative aspects); 17-24 (more positive than negative aspects); 25-32 (self-confident).c. Reference values: 0-12 (very poor); 13-24 (many aspects have to be improved); 25-36 (more positive than negative aspects); 37-48 (good, generally speaking).d. Reference values: 0-07 (poor); 08-14 (not very good); 15-21 (not too bad); 22-28 (very good) e. Reference values: 0-50 (very poor); 51-100 (with many problems); 101-150 (more positive than negative); 151-200 (excellent).
Source: Created by the authors.
