LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,113
تعداد مقالات10,208
تعداد مشاهده مقاله40,780,378
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,804,134
BADYAL, DINESH, BALA, SUMAN, SINGH, TEJINDER, GULREZ, GAURAV. (1397). Impact of immediate feedback on the learning of medical students in pharmacology. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 7(1), 1-6. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2019.41036
DINESH K BADYAL; SUMAN BALA; TEJINDER SINGH; GAURAV GULREZ. "Impact of immediate feedback on the learning of medical students in pharmacology". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 7, 1, 1397, 1-6. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2019.41036
BADYAL, DINESH, BALA, SUMAN, SINGH, TEJINDER, GULREZ, GAURAV. (1397). 'Impact of immediate feedback on the learning of medical students in pharmacology', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 7(1), pp. 1-6. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2019.41036
BADYAL, DINESH, BALA, SUMAN, SINGH, TEJINDER, GULREZ, GAURAV. Impact of immediate feedback on the learning of medical students in pharmacology. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1397; 7(1): 1-6. doi: 10.30476/jamp.2019.41036

Impact of immediate feedback on the learning of medical students in pharmacology

Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism
مقاله 1، دوره 7، شماره 1، فروردین 2019، صفحه 1-6    اصل مقاله (1.7 M)
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/jamp.2019.41036
نویسندگان
DINESH K BADYAL1؛ SUMAN BALA* 2؛ TEJINDER SINGH3؛ GAURAV GULREZ1
1Department of Pharmacology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, India
2Department of Pharmacology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun, India
3Department of Pediatrics, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, India
چکیده
Introduction: Providing feedback to students is an essentialcomponent in medical education and has been shown to improvethe students’ learning. The purpose of this study is to evaluatethe effect of computer-based immediate feedback on the medicalstudents’ learning in a pharmacology course.
Methods: In this prospective intervention study some feedbackmodules in pharmacology (FMP) were prepared in two topics:the cardiovascular system (CVS) and chemotherapy, using blanktemplates on “Hot Potatoes” software. The FMP included MCbasedquestions and two versions were developed: one withfeedback (FMP-1) and the other without feedback (FMP-2). TheFMP-1 module provided immediate feedback for each option thestudent chose. The students (n=48) were randomized by computergenerated random number table to two groups A and B to receivethe module in CVS, i.e., FMP-1 and FMP-2, respectively. A crossoverdesign was adopted to expose all students to immediatefeedback modules. The test scores were compared and feedbackwas obtained from students and faculty using a validatedquestionnaire. A focus group discussion was conducted to clarifythe issues raised by the students.
Results: The module with immediate feedback was much better appreciated by the students than the module without feedback. The students spent more time on FMP-1 (42±7.00 minutes vs 27±12.36 minutes; p<0.001 in chemotherapy and 40±12.11 minutes vs 24±6.01 minutes; p<0.001 in CVS). However, there was no statistically significant difference in mean test scores. The qualitative data collected provided important information on the value of immediate feedback. The students believed that immediate feedback was an excellent way for self-assessment and improved their deeper understanding of content areas. They also felt that it supplemented their traditional learning habits
and stimulated them to read more. The students enjoyed its nonthreatening nature.
Conclusion: Immediate feedback improved the deeper understanding of pharmacology and its relevance to medicine for the two topics although immediate feedback did not improve test scores. Overall, immediate feedback had a positive impact on the students’ self-directed learning.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Self-assessment؛ Feedback؛ Computers؛ Learning؛ Education؛ Pharmacology
مراجع
  1. Wood BP. Feedback: a key feature of medical training. Radiology. 2000;215:17-9.
  2. Revell SM, McCurry MK. Engaging millennial learners: effectiveness of personal response system technology with nursing students in small and large classrooms. J Nurs Educ. 2010;49:272-5.
  3. Medical Council of India. Regulations on Graduate Medical Education. [Internet]. New Delhi, 1997 March 4. [updated; 2017 July cited; 2018 May 14] Available from: https://www.mciindia.org/CMS/rules-regulations/graduate-medical-education-regulations-1997.
  4. Perera J, Lee N, Win K, Perera J, Wijesuriya L. Formative feedback to students: the mismatch between faculty perceptions and student expectations. Med Teach. 2008;30:395-9.
  5. Johannesson E, Olsson M, Petersson G, Silen C. Learning features in computer simulation skills training. Nurse Educ Pract. 2010;10:268-73.
  6. Hot Potatoes version 6. [Internet]. 2009 [updated 2011 Nov 22; cited 2018 May 14]. Available from http://hotpot.uvic.ca/.
  7. Burford B, Hesketh A, Wakeling J, Bagnall G, Colthart I, Illing J1, et al. Asking the right questions and getting meaningful responses: 12 tips on developing and administering a questionnaire survey for healthcare professionals. Med Teacher. 2009;31:207-11.
  8. Reswell JW. Mixed methods procedures. In: Laughton CD, editor. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications; 2003.p. 208-27.
  9. Wong L P. Focus group discussion: a tool for health and medical research. Singapore Med J. 2008;49:256-61.
  10. Bienstock JL, Katz NT, Cox SM, Hueppchen N, Erickson S, Puscheck EE. To the point: medical education reviews–providing feedback. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:508-13.
  11. Elliott RA, McDowell J, Marriott JL, Calandra A, Duncan G. A pharmacy preregistration course using online teaching and learning methods. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73:1-8.
  12. Cain J, Black EP, Rohr J. An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73:1-7.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,523
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,145


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب