To Examine Students' Viewpoint on Active Learning Techniques: A Comparative Study
Authors/Creators
- 1. Senior Resident, Department of Physiology, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Medical College & Hospital, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India
- 2. Assistant Professor, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Medical College & Hospital, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India
- 3. Professor & HOD, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Medical College & Hospital, Bihta, Patna, Bihar, India
Description
Aim: The aim of the present study was to assess the students’ perspective regarding active learning methods and to compare outcome of active learning method to previous traditional teaching methods. Methods: The present study was carried out in the Physiology Department .Students and faculty were informed and introduced to active learning strategy regarding a particular topic. Results: The mean value and standard deviation for Group 1 consisting of 50 participants and Group 2 consisting of 50 study participants were 32.44+8.12 and 26.64+8.32 respectively. It indicated that students of active learning group performed significantly better than students with traditional learning methods (P < 0.0001).Majority of students were in favor of this new teaching method. Students developed more interest and better understanding in lectures. Group study discussion leads them to develop their knowledge more in comparison to traditional methods and also better interactions and environment created due to this method. Pause period method made a good impact in understanding the topic. Furthermore, the use of MCQs, models and role plays created more healthy surroundings in understanding renal physiology. Students’ also find it easy to correlate with clinical content. Even students were keen to attend more seminars like this, also ready to increase more number of tests and short work assignments. Majority of students’ felt a healthy change in atmosphere due to these new methods. Conclusion: Active learning method definitely helps in better understanding of the subject in comparison with the old didactic method of teaching. This conclusion suggests that we should need to promote active learning methods more in different fields so that the development of knowledge occurs in way which is beneficial to all. These new methods also developed interest of teacher and due to this a student- teacher relationship also became better.
Abstract (English)
Aim: The aim of the present study was to assess the students’ perspective regarding active learning methods and to compare outcome of active learning method to previous traditional teaching methods. Methods: The present study was carried out in the Physiology Department .Students and faculty were informed and introduced to active learning strategy regarding a particular topic. Results: The mean value and standard deviation for Group 1 consisting of 50 participants and Group 2 consisting of 50 study participants were 32.44+8.12 and 26.64+8.32 respectively. It indicated that students of active learning group performed significantly better than students with traditional learning methods (P < 0.0001).Majority of students were in favor of this new teaching method. Students developed more interest and better understanding in lectures. Group study discussion leads them to develop their knowledge more in comparison to traditional methods and also better interactions and environment created due to this method. Pause period method made a good impact in understanding the topic. Furthermore, the use of MCQs, models and role plays created more healthy surroundings in understanding renal physiology. Students’ also find it easy to correlate with clinical content. Even students were keen to attend more seminars like this, also ready to increase more number of tests and short work assignments. Majority of students’ felt a healthy change in atmosphere due to these new methods. Conclusion: Active learning method definitely helps in better understanding of the subject in comparison with the old didactic method of teaching. This conclusion suggests that we should need to promote active learning methods more in different fields so that the development of knowledge occurs in way which is beneficial to all. These new methods also developed interest of teacher and due to this a student- teacher relationship also became better.
Files
IJTPR,Vol13,Issue12,Article52.pdf
Files
(329.2 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:0f2121319b914f0d681be17738c8261c
|
329.2 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-12-18
Software
References
- 1. Vidic B, Weitlauf HM. Horizontal and vertical integration of academic disciplines in the medical school curriculum. Clin Anat. 2002 May; 1 5(3):233-5. 2. Wenrich MD, Jackson MB, Wolfhagen I, Ramsey PG, Scherpbier AJ. What are the benefits of early patient contact?--A comparison of three preclinical patient contact settings. BMC Med Educ. 2013 Jun 3;13:80. 3. Dornan T, Littlewood S, Margolis SA, Scherpbier A, Spencer J, Ypinazar V. How can experience in clinical and community settings contribute to early medical education? A BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2006 Feb; 28(1):3-18. 4. Diemers AD, Dolmans DH, Verwijnen MG, Heineman E, Scherpbier AJ. Students' opinions about the effects of preclinical patient contacts on their learning. Adv Health SciEduc Theory Pract. 2008 Dec;13(5):633-47. 5. Michael J. What makes physiology hard for students to learn? Results of a faculty survey. Advances in physiology education. 2007 Jan; 31(1):34-40. 6. Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. Too much teaching, not enough learning: what is the solution?. Advances in physiology education. 2006 Mar; 30(1):17-22. 7. Gilkar SA, Lone S, Lone RA. Introduction of active learning method in learning physiology by MBBS students. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research. 2016 Jul;6(3):186. 8. Baykan Z, Naçar M. Learning styles of firstyear medical students attending Erciyes University in Kayseri, Turkey. Advances in physiology education. 2007 Jun;31(2):158-60. 9. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 2014 Jun 10;111(23):8410-5. 10. Gross R. Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. 6thed. UK: Hachette; 2010. 11. Karban R. Plant sensing and communication. InPlant sensing and communication 2015 Jun 18. University of Chicago Press. 12. Armstrong JS. Natural learning in higher education. Available at SSRN 1928831. 2010 Apr 16. 13. Thaman R, Dhillon S, Saggar S, Gupta M, Kaur H. Promoting active learning in respiratory physiology-positive student perception and improved outcomes. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 2013;3(1 ):27. 14. Dornan T, Bundy C. What can experience add to early medical education? Consensus survey. BMJ. 2004 Oct 9;329(7470):834. 15. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 2014 Jun 10;111(23):8410-5. 16. Sinnayah P, Rathner JA, Loton D, Klein R, Hartley P. A combination of active learning strategies improves student academic outcomes in first-year paramedic bioscience. Advances in physiology education. 2019 Jun 1;43 (2):233- 40. 17. Dowlati E, Musick DW, Zhang L, Thornton K, Carvalho H. Use of Dramatization to Teach Cardiac Cycle Physiology to Medical Students. Journal of Education and Training Studies. 2016 Sep;4(9):100-8. 18. Cardozo LT, Miranda AS, Moura MJ, Marcondes FK. Effect of a puzzle on the process of students' learning about cardiac physiology. Advances in physiology education. 20 16 Sep;40(3):425-31. 19. Carvalho H, West CA. Voluntary participation in an active learning exercise leads to a better understanding of physiology. Advances in Physiology Education. 2011 Mar;35(1):53-8.