| Literature DB >> 35774839 |
Hasan Khalaf1, Basim Almothafar2, Noor Alhalabi3.
Abstract
Background: There are three undergraduate medical school curricula types - 'traditional', 'integrated', and 'problem-based learning' (PBL). Traditional curricula involve teaching basic medical science in the early years in an atomistic and often didactic way, predominantly through lectures. In later years, students move on to learning clinical skills and applying their medical knowledge in clinical settings. Meanwhile, the philosophy of integrated curricula is that students learn best by understanding medical science in relation to whole systems and by linking knowledge with practice. Integrated curricula take a more holistic approach and bring together elements of medical science rather than teaching them in isolation. Objective: The study aimed to measure and compare perceptions of the learning environment between two cohorts of medical students at a medical school in Iraq. The intention was to explore differences in perceptions between those following a traditional surgical curriculum and those following an innovative, integrated curriculum and thereby add to the body of evidence looking at the impact of the two surgical curriculum models on the learning environment.Entities:
Keywords: learning environment; medical perceptions; surgical curriculum change
Year: 2022 PMID: 35774839 PMCID: PMC9233455 DOI: 10.5455/aim.2022.30.105-109
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Inform Med ISSN: 0353-8109
Characteristics of the participant
| Items | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Total number of participants | 216 |
| Total number of respondents after exclusion | 206 |
| Number Responses of integrated group | 116(56.3%) |
| Males | 62 (53.4%) |
| Females | 54 (46.6%) |
| Number responses of traditional group | 90 (43.6%) |
| Males | 59 (65.6%) |
| Females | 31 (34.4%) |
Comparison of DREEM scores between Kufa University Year 6 integrated curriculum and Year 6 traditional curriculum medical students. SPoL = Students’ perceptions of learning, SPoT = Students’ perceptions of teachers, SASP = Students’ academic self-perceptions, SPoA = Students’ perceptions of the atmosphere, SSSP = Students’ social self-perceptions
| DREEM sub-set | Integrated group | Traditional Group | Mean diff. (with 95% conf. int.) | t | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. dev. | Mean | Std. dev. | ||||
| SPoL | 31.37 | 12.59 | 27.39 | 10.29 | 3.98 (0.82 to 7.13) | 2.49 | 0.01 |
| SPoT | 27.07 | 9.41 | 24.78 | 9.45 | 2.29 (-0.26 to 4.84) | 1.77 | 0.08 |
| SASP | 20.44 | 7.89 | 18.68 | 8.40 | 1.76 (-0.43 to 3.96) | 1.581 | 0.12 |
| SPoA | 27.72 | 11.61 | 25.71 | 12.78 | 2.02 (-1.27 to 5.30) | 1.210 | 0.23 |
| SSSP | 15.88 | 5.41 | 15.46 | 5.43 | 0.42 (-1.05 to 1.89) | 0.56 | 0.57 |
| DREEM total score | 122.57 | 38.38 | 112.02 | 39.00 | 10.55 (-0.72 to 21.02) | 1.99 | 0.05 |