| Literature DB >> 31096975 |
Keerti Singh1, Ambadasu Bharatha1, Bidyadhar Sa2, Oswald Peter Adams1, Md Anwarul Azim Majumder3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various evidence-based and student-centered strategies such as team-based learning (TBL), case-based learning (CBL), and flipped classroom have been recently applied to anatomy education and have shown to improve student engagement and interaction. These strategies shift the focus of teaching from knowledge transmission to knowledge construction by students and encourage the use of tasks. This study discusses the use of an active and engaging learning strategy to teach the musculoskeletal system to Year 1 MBBS students (Faculty of Medical Sciences, The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados) and examines the correlation between assessment modalities and student performance.Entities:
Keywords: Active and engaging learning; Anatomy; Barbados; Medical education; Student-centred learning strategies
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31096975 PMCID: PMC6524257 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-019-1590-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Different modes of presentation by the students
| Presentation modes | Upper limb muscles | Lower limb muscles | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poem | 19 (29%) | 30 (45%) | 49 (37%) |
| Story | 12 (18%) | 16 (24%) | 28 (21%) |
| Song | 7 (11%) | 8 (12%) | 15 (11%) |
| Skit | 10 (15%) | 4 (6%) | 14 (11%) |
| Monologue | 5 (8%) | 3 (5%) | 8 (6%) |
| PowerPoint | 3 (5%) | 2 (3%) | 5 (4%) |
| Riddle | 5 (8%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (4%) |
| Video | 3 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2%) |
| Game | 1 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1%) |
| Drawing | 1 (2%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (2%) |
Student performance in examinations (N-66)
| Examinations | Weightage | Marks (Mean ± SD) |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-presentation spotter (UL) | – | 54.5 ± 18 |
| Active and engaging learning presentation (UL) | 5% | 77.0 ± 16.1 |
| Post-presentation spotter (UL) | 5% | 67.9 ± 13.6 |
| Mid-Term Exam | 20% | 66.1 ± 13.4 |
| Active and engaging learning presentation (LL) | 5% | 72.3 ± 16.4 |
| Spotter (LL) | 5% | 67.9 ± 13.1 |
| Final Exam | 60% | 66.6 ± 9.9 |
| Total marks | 100% | 67.2 ± 8.9 |
UL Upper limb, LL Lower limb
Correlations between different assessment modalities
| Post-presentation spotter (UL) | Mid-term | Spotter (LL) | Final exam | Total marks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-presentation spotter (UL) | 0.653a | 0.516a | 0.653a | 0.391a | 0.550a |
| Post- presentation spotter (UL | 0.732a | 1.000a | 0.443a | 0.688a | |
| Mid-Term | 0.732a | 0.355a | 0.719a | ||
| Spotter (LL) | 0.443a | 0.688a | |||
| Final Exam | 0.884a |
aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
UL Upper limb, LL Lower limb
Comparison of performance between group A (n1 = 33) and Group B (n2 = 33)
| Group | Mean ± SD | t-ratio | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Pre-presentation spotter (UL) | A | 57.35 ± 15.18 | 1.31 | 0.20 | −3.01 | 14.53 |
| B | 51.60 ± 20.14 | −3.03 | 14.54 | |||
| Active and engaging learning presentation (UL) | A | 77.88 ± 17.28 | 0.46 | 0.65 | −6.14 | 9.78 |
| B | 76.06 ± 14.99 | −6.14 | 9.78 | |||
| Post-presentation spotter (UL) | A | 68.40 ± 14.28 | 0.28 | 0.78 | −5.56 | 7.37 |
| B | 67.49 ± 11.91 | −5.57 | 7.38 | |||
| Mid Term | A | 67.95 ± 14.19 | 1.14 | 0.26 | −2.80 | 10.31 |
| B | 64.19 ± 12.41 | −2.80 | 10.31 | |||
| Active and engaging learning presentation (LL) | A | 71.21 ± 14.74 | 0.52 | 0.60 | −10.25 | 6.01 |
| B | 73.33 ± 18.14 | −10.26 | 6.01 | |||
| Spotter (LL) | A | 68.40 ± 14.28 | 0.28 | 0.78 | −5.56 | 7.37 |
| B | 67.49 ± 11.91 | −5.57 | 7.38 | |||
| Final Exam | A | 66.79 ± 8.68 | 0.17 | 0.86 | −4.48 | 5.33 |
| B | 66.36 ± 11.12 | −4.49 | 5.34 | |||
| Total | A | 67.97 ± 8.48 | 0.66 | 0.51 | −2.93 | 5.84 |
| B | 66.52 ± 9.32 | −2.93 | 5.84 | |||
UL Upper limb, LL Lower limb