Comparison of problem based learning with traditional teaching as perceived by the students of Rawalpindi Medical College
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".