MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317035450 · doi:10.53350/pjmhs20221611620

Effectiveness of Small Group Discussion Sessions in Teaching Biochemistry for Undergraduate Medical Students

2022· article· en· W4317035450 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsAbbott (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationCurriculumSmall group learningLikert scalePsychologyMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aim: Teaching is an important part of the medical curriculum. Different teaching methods include small group discussions, demonstrations, inquiry approaches, lectures, problem solving methods, and tutorials. Group discussions are at the core of medical education because they help students learn more effectively. As a result, the current study sought to analyze the efficacy of small group discussions in teaching biochemistry to undergraduate medical students. Place and Duration: Gomal Medical College MTI, Dera Ismail Khan and Department of Biochemistry of Amna Inayat Medical College Lahore for the duration from March 2022 to August 2022. Method: This study included 50 undergraduate medical students of first year registered in international medical program. Prior to study conduction, ethical approval and informed written consent was taken. Student’s perception regarding small group discussion sessions were elicited based on unknown questionnaires provided to them. Likert scale was used to show their level of agreement with the questionnaire's claims. Results: Of the 50 undergraduate medical students, 28 (56%) were male and 22 (44%) were females students. About 64.6% (n=32) students believed that their grasp over the study material improved with small group discussion and 52.4% (n=26) agreed to the facilitation of active learning in small group discussion. Communication skills and clinical reasoning improved by small group discussion were claimed by 36% (n=18) medical students. Majority of undergraduate medical students 68% (n=34) strongly agreed to the claims that small group discussion helped them to correlate medical problems with biochemical concepts. Conclusion: The present study concluded that small group discussion in combination with lectures appears to provide the best instruction for the learner or medical students. Mostly students emphasized on importance of small group discussion in terms of topic better comprehension, promoting knowledge, correlation of biochemical ideas with medical issues, and interest. Similarly, they discussed the need of developing effective communication skills, as well as leadership and teamwork abilities. Keywords: Medical students, Undergraduate, Small group discussion, Biochemistry, Effectiveness

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207