Comparison of the problem based learning-driven with the traditional didactic-lecture-based curricula

41Citations
Citations of this article
155Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Problem-based learning (PBL) with the traditional lecture-based curricula. METHODS: The single best answer Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) and the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) were used to compare performance of the lecture-based curriculum with the PBL medical student groups. The reliability for the MCQs and OSCE was calculated with Kuder-Richardson formula and Cronbach's alpha, respectively. The content validity of the MCQs and OSCE were tested by the Independent Subject Experts (ISE). The Student's t-test for independent samples was used to compare the item difficulty of the MCQs and OSCE's, and the Chi-square test was used to compare the grades between the two student groups. RESULTS: The PBL students outperformed the old curriculum students in overall grades, theoretical knowledge base (tested with K2 type MCQs) and OSCE. The number of the PBL students with scores between 80-90% (grade B) was significantly (p=0.035) higher while their number with scores between 60 to 69% (grade C) was significantly p=0.001) lower than the old curriculum students. Similarly, the mean MCQ and the OSCE scores of the new curriculum students were significantly higher (p = 0.001 and p = 0.025, respectively) than the old curriculum students. Lastly, the old curriculum students found the K2-MCQs to be more (p = 0.001) difficult than the single correct answer (K1 type) MCQs while no such difference was found by the new curriculum students. CONCLUSIONS: Suitably designed MCQs can be used to tap the higher cognitive knowledge base acquired in the PBL setting.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zahid, M. A., Varghese, R., Mohammed, A. M., & Ayed, A. K. (2016). Comparison of the problem based learning-driven with the traditional didactic-lecture-based curricula. International Journal of Medical Education, 7, 181–187. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5749.80f5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free