Comparison of problem based learning with traditional teaching as perceived by the students of Rawalpindi Medical College
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Objective To compare lecture based learning with problem based learning (PBL) and to identify the deficiencies in both teaching methodologies. Methods A cross sectional comparative study was carried out among 198 students studying in 2nd year and 3rd year of MBBS in Rawalpindi Medical College as the students of these two classes had been taught both by lectures and PBL sessions. They were enrolled by convenience sampling. The study was performed for a period of two months from January 2010 to February 2010. Data was collected by means of structured questionnaire. Results Of the total 198 students, 53% were girls while 47% students were boys. 34.8% and 65.2% respondents were students of 2nd year and 3rd year MBBS respectively and majority of those (55.06%) were hostelites. 40.92% liked only PBL followed by both Lecture Based Learning (LBL) and PBL (36.36%). 41.91% students claimed that PBL has lead to better understanding of subject while 35.34% respondents favored both LBL and PBL. 93% respondents admitted that PBL has lead to more clarification of their concepts while 32.82% students appreciated both LBL and PBL. Coverage of sufficient syllabus through PBL and both (LBL & PBL) was claimed by 52.54% and 65.67% students respectively. Majority (52.02%) was satisfied with training of lectures for traditional teaching while 52.52% were dissatisfied with training of facilitators for PBL. 44.95% were satisfied with availability of resources for PBL while 55.58% respondents preferred present scenario (LBL parallel with PBL). Conclusion Lecture Based Learning must go parallel with Problem Based Learning for better analytical approach and clarification of concepts among medical students. There is need to improve the information resources for PBL. (Rawal Med J 2010;35:249-253). Key words Problem based learning, learning, assesment. INTRODUCTION PBL was started in 1969 by Barrows and Tamblyn at Mc Master University, Canada for undergraduate medical students. Later the system was adopted by Europe, USA and rest of the world.1 A study carried out among 1st year students at Nelson Mandela school of Medicine showed that majority of the students benefited from input of other students in PBL tutorials as they were conducted in small groups.2 Contrary to this study, a study from Kuwait University revealed that introduction of new teaching methodologies may evoke certain factors that lead students to develop adverse perception of their educational environment3. Another study showed that knowledge and power of interpretation was quite improved among students on reaching the 3rd year but their interest in the process of PBL conduction was lost and they developed short cuts to solve the problem.4 It has been reported that instead of didactic communication in lecture hall, active participation of students in PBL had a bigger role to play in continuing medical education.1 The current study was aimed to compare the perception of MBBS
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».