F R Ochsendorf1, W-H Boehncke, A Böer, R Kaufmann. 1. Center of Dermatology and Venerology, University Hospital of the J.W. Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7 60590 Frankfurt/Main, Germany. ochsendorf@em.uni-frankfurt.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper reports a prospective, randomised study comparing a problem-oriented practical (POP) course based on paper cases to a personal bedside teaching (PBT) practical course and a standard practical course. METHODS: During 2 consecutive terms, students were randomly allocated to either 2 POP groups/term (n = 10/group), 2 PBT groups/term (n = 10/group) or the standard practical course, which consisted of a rotating system of lectures and bedside teaching with randomly appointed tutors. Each course was evaluated with the same 12-item questionnaire and multiple-choice test administered at the beginning and end of the course. RESULTS: The numbers of students evaluated were 36 for the POP groups, 37 for the PBT groups, and 155 for the standard course. The PBT and POP courses were rated significantly better (P < 0.001) than the standard course for all items. Aggregate marks (mean +/- SD) were: 1.59 +/- 0.8 for the POP course; 1.69 +/- 0.68 for the PBT course, and 2.71 +/- 0.98 for the standard course. There were no significant differences between the POP and PBT courses. Significantly better learning rates as indicated by an increase in the number of correctly answered questions were observed in students attending the POP and PBT courses. CONCLUSION: This prospective study demonstrated that there was no difference in the rating of a POP course and a bedside teaching course by students randomly assigned to 1 of 3 different pedagogical approaches. Furthermore, both alternative options achieved better ratings than the standard course, which is current teaching practice in our medical school. The PBT and POP approaches provided superior learning success and POP helped solve the problems of standardisation and patient recruitment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This paper reports a prospective, randomised study comparing a problem-oriented practical (POP) course based on paper cases to a personal bedside teaching (PBT) practical course and a standard practical course. METHODS: During 2 consecutive terms, students were randomly allocated to either 2 POP groups/term (n = 10/group), 2 PBT groups/term (n = 10/group) or the standard practical course, which consisted of a rotating system of lectures and bedside teaching with randomly appointed tutors. Each course was evaluated with the same 12-item questionnaire and multiple-choice test administered at the beginning and end of the course. RESULTS: The numbers of students evaluated were 36 for the POP groups, 37 for the PBT groups, and 155 for the standard course. The PBT and POP courses were rated significantly better (P < 0.001) than the standard course for all items. Aggregate marks (mean +/- SD) were: 1.59 +/- 0.8 for the POP course; 1.69 +/- 0.68 for the PBT course, and 2.71 +/- 0.98 for the standard course. There were no significant differences between the POP and PBT courses. Significantly better learning rates as indicated by an increase in the number of correctly answered questions were observed in students attending the POP and PBT courses. CONCLUSION: This prospective study demonstrated that there was no difference in the rating of a POP course and a bedside teaching course by students randomly assigned to 1 of 3 different pedagogical approaches. Furthermore, both alternative options achieved better ratings than the standard course, which is current teaching practice in our medical school. The PBT and POP approaches provided superior learning success and POP helped solve the problems of standardisation and patient recruitment.