E. GÜRPINAR, M K. ALİMOĞLU, C. TETİK, I. AKDOGAN

Can different curriculum types affect opinions of tutors and students about problem based learning?

Amaç: Literatürde Probleme Dayalı Öğrenim (PDÖ) ile ilgili öğrenci ve eğitim yönlendiricilerinin memnuniyeti hakkında yapılmış çok sayıda araştırma bulunmaktadır. Ancak PDÖ yöntemini farklı şekillerde uygulayan (tam veya hibrid) programlarda memnuniyeti değerlendiren çalışmalar sınırlı sayıdadır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, eğitim programında PDÖ yönteminin tam veya hibrid program şeklinde uygulayan fakültelerin öğrenci ve öğretim üyelerinin görüşlerini belirlemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu araştırma tam PDÖ yöntemini ve hibrid eğitim yöntemini uygulayan iki tıp fakültesinin öğrencileri ve eğitim yönlendiricileri (n=707) üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Eğitim yönlendiricileri ve öğrencilerin, PDÖ hakkındaki görüşlerini belirlemek amacı ile yazarlar tarafından hazırlanan bir anket formu kullanılmıştır. Anketler PDÖ’nün klasik eğitime göre avantajlarını içeren, beşli Likert tipi skala ile cevaplanması istenilen 14 açıklama ve iki spesifik soruyu içermektedir. Bulgular: Tam PDÖ uygulanan programdaki öğrenci ve eğitim yönlendiricileri, hibrid program uygulayan fakültenin öğrenci ve eğitim yönlendiricilerine göre, PDÖ’nün literatürde belirtilen avantajları ile ilgili daha olumlu yönde görüş bildirmiştir. Sonuç: Bu bulgu, PDÖ’nün avantajlarından daha fazla yararlanılabilmesi için, tam PDÖ uygulamanın, hibrid program uygulamaya göre daha yararlı olabileceğini göstermektedir.

Farklı eğitim programları, eğitim yönlendiricileri ve öğrencilerin probleme dayalı öğrenim hakkındaki görüşlerini etkileyebilir mi?

Aim: There is numerous literature available on the studies regarding the satisfaction of students and tutors with the Problem Based Learning (PBL) approach, however the research investigating views of both sides of the different implementations of PBL (full or hybrid) is limited. Our objective is to ascertain different opinions of medical students and tutors on PBL and compare their opinions on the basis of curriculum type. The research will be based on two medical schools with the full PBL and hybrid curricula. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted among students and tutors (n=768) in two medical schools, one of which has a full PBL curriculum and the other a hybrid curriculum. A full PBL curriculum has been applied at the Pamukkale University Faculty of Medicine since 1999 to teach basic medical sciences throughout the first three years of medical education. A hybrid curriculum has been applied in Akdeniz University Faculty of Medicine since 2002 to teach basic medical sciences throughout the first two years of medical education. A “tutor questionnaire” and a “student questionnaire” prepared by the authors to ascertain the views of the participants on PBL were used. The questionnaires included 14 statements scored on a five-item Likert-type scale and two additional specific questions considering previously confirmed advantages of PBL to lectures. Ninety-two percent (n=707) of the target group fully responded to both questionnaires. Results: Students and tutors who attended a school focused which provided a full PBL approach appreciated to a much higher extent the previously confirmed advantages of PBL in lectures more than those who attended a school based on the hybrid approach. Conclusion: PBL curriculum can be considered superior to hybrid curriculum via demonstrating the advantages that a PBL approach can provide.

PDF

___

1. Elliott M. Are we going in the right direction? A survey of the undergraduate medical education in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom from a general practice perspective. Med Teach 1999;2:53-60.
2. Gurpinar E, Senol Y, Aktekin M. Evaluation of Problem Based Learning by Tutors and Students in a Medical Faculty of Turkey. KMJ 2009;41(2):123-27.
3. Davis MH, Harden RM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No.15: Problem-Based Learning: A practical guide. Med Teach 1999;21:130-40.
4. Barrows HS. A specific, problem-based, self-directed learning method designed to teach medical problem-solving skills, and enhance knowledge retention and recall. Tutorials In Problem-Based Learning 1984;16-32.
5. Bordage G, Zacks R. The structure of medical knowledge in the memories of medical students and general practitioners: categories and prototypes. Med Educ 1984;18:406-16.
6. Norman GR, Rosenthal 0, Brooks LR, Allen SW, Muzzin LJ. The development of expertise in dermatology. Arch Dermatol 1989;25:1063-8.
7. Papa FJ, Shores JH, Meyer S. Effects of pattern matching, pattern discrimination and experience in the development of diagnostic expertise. Acad Med 1990;65:21-22.
8. Cole CR. Differences between conventional and problem-based curricula in their students’ approaches to studying. Med Educ 1985;19(4): 308-309.
9. Newble DI, Clarke RM. The approaches to learning of students in a traditional and in an innovative problem-based medical school. Med Educ. 1986;20(4):267-273.
10. Dolmans D. Schmidt H. The advantages of problem-based curricula. Post Med J 1996;72:535-538.
11. Blumberg P. Michael J. The development of self-directed learning behaviors in a partially teacher-centred, problem-based learning curriculum. Teach Learn Med 1992;4:3–8.
12. Hill J, Rolfe IE, Pearson SA, Heathcote A. Do junior doctors feel they are prepared for hospital practice? A study of graduates from traditional and non-traditional medical schools. Med Educ 1998;32(1):19-24.
13. Moore GT, Block SD, Style CB, Mitchell R. The influence of the new pathway curriculum on Harvard medical students. Acad Med 1994;69(12): 983-939.
14. Dolmands D, Gijselaers W, Moust J, Grave W, Wolfhagen I, Vleuten C. Trends in research on the tutor in problem-based learning: conclusions and implications for educational practice and research. Med Teach 2002;24:173-180.
15. Norman GR, Schmidt HG. The psychological basis of problem-based learning: a review of the evidence. Acad Med 1992;67:557-565.
16. Azer SA. Challenges facing PBL tutors: 12 Tips for successful group facilitation. Med Teach 2005;27(8);676-681.
17. Dolmands DH, Ginns P. A short questionnaire to evaluate the effectiveness of tutors in PBL, validity and reliability. Med Teach 2005;27(6):534-538.
18. Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluating Training Programs. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers Inc; 1998:657-661.
19. Vernon DT. Attitudes and opinions of faculty tutors about problem-based learning. Acad Med 1995;70(3):216-223.
20. Khoo HE, Chhem RK, Gwee MC, Balasubramaniam P. Introduction of problem-based learning in a traditional medical curriculum in Singapore--students' and tutors' perspectives. Ann Acad Med Sing 2001;30(4):371-374.
21. O’Neill PA, Morris J, Baxter CM. Evaluation of an Integrated curriculum using problem-based learning in a clinical environment: The Manchester Experience. Med Educ 2000; 34(3):222-230.
22. Hagi SK, Al-Shawwa LA. Evaluation of second and fourth year undergraduate medical students' perception and acceptance of the problem-based learning process. Saudi Med J 2011; 32(10): 1060-1065.
23. Usmani A, Sultan ST, Ali S, Fatima N, Babar S. Comparison of students and facilitators' perception of implementing problem based learning. J Pak Med Assoc. 2011; 61(4): 332-335.
24. Gurpinar E, Senol Y, Aktekin M. Evaluation of Problem Based Learning by Tutors and Students in a Medical Faculty of Turkey. KMJ 2009;41(2):123-127.
25. Gurpinar E, Alimoglu MK, Mamakli S, Aktekin M. Can learning style predict student satisfaction with different instruction methods and academic achiebvment in medical education? Adv Physiol Educ 2010;34(4):192-196.
26. Kaufman DM, Holmes DB. Tutoring in problem based learning: Perceptions of teachers and students. Med Educ 1996;30(5): 371-377.