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/ ZENODOarrow_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/
ZENODO
Article . 2024
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Article . 2024
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Article . 2024
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Lectures versus Small Group Discussion versus Self-Directed Learning among MBBS Students: A Quasi Experimental Study

Authors: Sagar Chidanand Duganavar; Justina Princess. G; Aruna Bhushan; Jinay P Mehta;

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Lectures versus Small Group Discussion versus Self-Directed Learning among MBBS Students: A Quasi Experimental Study

Abstract

Background: We have undertaken this study to compare the effectiveness and perception of students for lectures, small group discussions, and self-directed learning among second year MBBS students. Methods: A total of 141 students were included in this study. For finding the effectiveness of each learning method 10 marks MCQ test was taken and questionnaires were given to find the perception of students for learning methods. Results: Among 141 participants the mean scores for the lecture was 5.9, small group discussion (SGD) was 9, and self-directed learning (SDL) was 6.5 out of 10. The mean scores of small group discussions were higher and statistically significant. Maximum marks in lectures, small group discussions and self-directed learning were 9, 10, 10. Although 10 marks was scored by both small group discussion and self-directed learning group, there is a significant difference between the percentage of students scoring 10 marks in SGD (41.8%) and SDL (2.1%) stating that SGD is more effective. Perception of students was better for small group discussions when compared to lectures and self-directed learning.

Background: We have undertaken this study to compare the effectiveness and perception of students for lectures, small group discussions, and self-directed learning among second year MBBS students. Methods: A total of 141 students were included in this study. For finding the effectiveness of each learning method 10 marks MCQ test was taken and questionnaires were given to find the perception of students for learning methods. Results: Among 141 participants the mean scores for the lecture was 5.9, small group discussion (SGD) was 9, and self-directed learning (SDL) was 6.5 out of 10. The mean scores of small group discussions were higher and statistically significant. Maximum marks in lectures, small group discussions and self-directed learning were 9, 10, 10. Although 10 marks was scored by both small group discussion and self-directed learning group, there is a significant difference between the percentage of students scoring 10 marks in SGD (41.8%) and SDL (2.1%) stating that SGD is more effective. Perception of students was better for small group discussions when compared to lectures and self-directed learning.

Keywords

Effectiveness, Medical Undergraduates, Perception, Teaching methods

  • 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