Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Journal of Family an...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Journal of Family and Community Medicine
Article . 2023 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
versions View all 4 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Effectiveness of the use of clickers versus group discussion in learning by undergraduate medical students

Authors: Jannatbi L Iti; Deepti M Kadeangadi;

Effectiveness of the use of clickers versus group discussion in learning by undergraduate medical students

Abstract

Abstract BACKGROUND: The evolution of Medical learning shows the incorporation of modern technology in teaching, learning, assessment, and medical practice. Clickers are easy to use, and provide instantaneous feedback on the student’s comprehension of the information given. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of clickers in undergraduate medical students’ learning by comparing clickers’ scores with group discussion scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional comparative study with cross-over design was conducted for 6 months on 80 students of Phase III Part I MBBS. After an interactive lecture on diarrhea with a community medicine perspective, the students were divided into two groups, A and B, each consisting of 40 students. Group B students were further divided into five subgroups of eight students each. Group A students were assessed with clickers, Group B with group discussion and the cross-over done after 2 weeks. A questionnaire was used to assess the perceptions of the students on the use of clickers. Academic performance scores of the students were compared within the groups at different times (i.e. immediately after the interactive lecture and after 1st week and 2nd weeks) and between the two main groups. Data analysis was performed using SPSS. Mean and standard deviations were calculated for quantitative variables, whereas categorical data was presented as frequencies and proportions. Qualitative data was analyzed using content analysis technique. RESULTS: The mean age of students was 20.4 (SD=0.6) years. The mean scores for the students using clickers were significantly higher than the mean scores for the students using group discussion. Most of the students (78.8%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the “clickers were easy to use.” CONCLUSION: The study concluded that the academic performance of medical undergraduate students using clickers was better than the performance of the students using group discussions.

Related Organizations
Keywords

undergraduate medical students, Medical Education, group discussion, Public aspects of medicine, RA1-1270, clickers

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green
gold