Cited by 8Problem and Project Based LearningInnovations in Medical EducationBiomedical and Engineering Education

COMPARISON OF LEARNING OUTCOMES IN PROBLEM BASED LEARNING AND LECTURE BASED LEARNING IN TEACHING FORENSIC MEDICINE

Open access
Balendran, Krishnan, John, Liza·2017·Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences

Abstract

A paradigm shift in the medical education methodologies from traditional methods to the SPICES model necessitates a change in teaching and assessment techniques.A call for change has to be accepted or rejected in the face of quality research and peer reviewed evidence. METHODSThe present study was undertaken amongst third semester MBBS students posted in Forensic Medicine as a part of clinical rotations.Two groups of students were instructed on a topic by Problem based learning and traditional lecture based learning respectively.Post-exposure assessments were undertaken using a peer reviewed and validated question paper (open ended questions).The results of the assessment were subjected to statistical analysis with respect to the various levels of cognitive domain. RESULTSThe results showed statistically significant learning outcomes in the group exposed to Problem based learning.The study may be done on a broader basis representing core area of the subject. CONCLUSIONThe study brought out statistically significant better assessment scores in the problem based learning method, which was manifest not only in recall but also in the higher levels of the cognitive domain.The learning process also witnessed an appreciably increased level of student co-operation and team work coupled with greater problem solving skills amongst the learners.A qualitative research into assessing the competence of the Indian Medical Graduate to fulfil his legal duties as a medical expert witness in courts of law may be undertaken in future.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14260/jemds/2017/22

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Balendran, K., & John, L.
Affiliations
T. D. Medical College (IN)
Corresponding author
Balendran, Krishnan
Venue
Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences
Published
2017-01-05
Volume
6
Issue
02
Pages
89-92
ISSN
  • 2278-4748 (ISSN-L)
  • 2278-4802
OpenAlex
W2718071430
Cited by
8
References
18
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biomedical and Engineering Education
Keywords
problem-based learning, lecture-based learning, forensic medicine education, learning outcomes, cognitive domain, medical students, clinical rotations, student teamwork, problem-solving skills

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review