Outcome comparison of 3rd year medical students between lecture based and active learning at Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Thailand

Authors

Prirayapak Sakoonwatanyoo
Manutham Manavathongchai
Ittisuk Subrungruang
Sirichan Chunhakan

Theme

7BB Approaches to teaching and learning

INSTITUTION

Department of Clinical Pathology
Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital
Navamindradhiraj University

Background

     In Thailand, clinical pathology is taught as a pre-clinical subject for 3rd year medical students. At Faculty of Medicine, Vajira Hospital, there are approximately 80 medical students for each academic year.

     The objective of this study is to compare the outcome of student cognition between an additional active learning exercise and only a passive lecture.

Conclusion

     In a traditional lecture, an implementation of an active learning with a lecture can enhance cognitive outcomes suggesting that this tool promotes interests and engagement of students as well as their understanding before and after a lecture. Interpersonal skill and team work were also created during small group post-test discussion.

Take-home Messages

     An active learning such as an online smartphone-based pretest and the crossword puzzle game post-test can be used to improve cognitive outcomes of medical students.

Summary of Work

     This retrospective study compared the outcome of 3rd -year medical students during academic year 2012 and 2013. For the former group, students were offered a 2 hours lecture while the latter group was offered a 10-minute online smartphone-based pretest before the lecture started. After 1.5 hours of lecture, students were divided into small groups of 4-6 people, and each group was participated in the crossword puzzle game which was used as a post-test to review their knowledge.

Summary of Results

     Data collected from this study was analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test. There was no significant difference in the difficulty index of MCQ as well as the total scores and GPAs of both groups. The score of the second group was significantly higher than the first group (p-value < 0.001). In addition, KR-20 of all tests was more than 0.7.

References

Gleason BL, Peeters MJ, Resman-Targoff BH, Karr S, McBane S, Kelley K, et al. American journal of pharmaceutical education. 2011 Nov 10;75(9):186.
Dill WR, Doppelt N. Management Science. 1963;10(1):30-46.
Shah S, Lynch LM, Macias-Moriarity LZ. American journal of pharmaceutical education. 2010 Sep 10;74(7):117.
Patel J. American journal of pharmaceutical education. 2008 Feb 15;72(1):21.
Premkumar K, Bonnycastle D. Medical Education. 2006;40(11):1129
Rose TM. American journal of pharmaceutical education. 2011 Nov 10;75(9):183.
Zlotos L, Kayne L, Thompson I, Kane KA, Boyter A. American journal of pharmaceutical education. 2010 Mar 10;74(2):27.
Marshall LL, Nykamp D. American journal of pharmaceutical education. 2010 Sep 10;74(7):119.
Serna MIM, Azor JFP. Congreso Internacional de Innovacion Docente; Universidad Politecnica de Cartagena2011.
Gaikwad N, Tankhiwale S. Perspectives on medical education. 2012 Dec;1(5-6):237-48.
Htwe TT, Sabaridah I, Rajyaguru KM, Mazidah AM. Singapore medical journal. 2012 Feb;53(2):121-3.
Saxena A, Nesbitt R, Pahwa P, Mills S. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2009 Sep;133(9):1457-62.

Background
Conclusion
Take-home Messages
Summary of Work
Summary of Results
References
Send ePoster Link