Figure 4 A 25-years old laborer who had radial neck fracture and drop wrist. Room setting and procedures Figure Barasertib in vitro 5 demonstrates the room setting. The tutor stood on the side of the room so that the cases become the core of interest and not the tutor. Cards with names of the

students were prepared in advance and put on their desk to help remembering their names. Ice breaking started by asking the students to present their names and what they expected from the tutorial. Ground rules were simple which included 1) everyone should participate, 2) explain why do you have this opinion 3) do not interrupt when others speak, 4) you can disagree but give an argument for that, 5) ask if things are not clear for you. Figure 5 A diagrammatic scheme showing the room setting. The tutor (T) facilitates the interactive session by prompting the students (S) to think by asking questions leading to understand basic principles of trauma management. Subjects Seven tutorials, PI3K/Akt/mTOR inhibitor having 5-9 students each, were given to fourth year medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, Auckland, New Zealand (3 tutorials) and subsequently to fifth year students at the Faculty of Medicine, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates (4 tutorials) during the period of 1997-2001.

SNX-5422 mw Students were exposed to the tutor for the first time, had limited knowledge of trauma and had been used to a traditional, didactic approach to teaching and learning medicine. Significant C59 chemical structure student participation was expected and encouraged. A total of 50 students have attended these tutorials. At the end of tutorial sessions, a reproduced self-administered questionnaire was utilized to gain students’ feedback. This questionnaire consisted of 16 validated items focusing on the educational tool, tutor-based skills, and student-centered skills (Table 2). These items were selected from the Student Evaluations of Courses and Teaching booklet, Centre for Professional Development, Auckland University [8]. The advised number of items to be selected was 9 to 19 depending on what is needed to be evaluated. Areas selected were attitude

with students, audiovisual aids, communication skills, motivation, and organization. Students anonymously rated items on a 7 point Likert-type scale. 15 items had the scale of (1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = mediocre, 4 = acceptable, 5 = good, 6 = very good, and 7 = outstanding). Only one attribute (pace of presentation) was different (1 = too slow, 4 = just right, 7 = much too fast). Space was also provided for open-ended comments to the question “”what did you like most about this person’s lecturing?”" Table 2 Mean (SD) and median (range)) values for students’ responses regarding the interactive approach to teaching traumatology (n = 50) Attribute Mean (SD) Median (range) Educational tool     Use of real world cases 6.36 (0.75) 7 (5-7) Use of visual methods 6.32 (0.