Effectiveness of Interactive Small Group Discussion as a Novel Teaching Learning Method for Slow Learners in Physiology
Effectiveness of Interactive Small Group Discussion as a Novel Teaching Learning Method
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v8i5.1305Keywords:
Interactive, Small group discussion, slow learners, PhysiologyAbstract
Background: Despite the known beneficial effects of small group teaching learning the original concept of small group deviate with regard to set-up and group size. Due to disproportionate ratio of teacher and student’s in small group discussions (SGD) most of the tutorials end up in to lectures and students are passive listeners. Involvement of students is effective method of teaching – learning and promotes problem solving, critical thinking, communication skills, teamwork, self- directed learning and retention of information. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of the interactive SGD for slow learners in Physiology. Methodology: Consented 56 students, scored less than 40% in internal assessment (IA) were involved in this study. Physiological systems considered as a one module and were divided into sub-units and learning objectives were formed. In the beginning of the SGD a pre -test was conducted. Students were divided into groups. Interactive inter- group discussions were conducted for focused groups. After the completion of all modules, assessment was conducted and score was compared with the first internal assessment score. Result: The result was reflected in improved performance with the interactive SGD, with Mean score of first IA (79.00 ± 17.20) and that of mean score of assessment taken after SGD (106.75 ± 23.74) with p < 0.05.Conclusion: Interactive SGD, help students to analyze, synthesize, integrate and apply in real world problems. This develops students as lifelong learners and enables them to solve a new problem with confidence, which helps them in their future. [Neha KNJIRM 2017; 8(5):49-52]
References
2. Sarah Edmunds1 & George Brown. Effective small group learning: AMEE guide no. 48 medical teacher 2010; 32: 715–726
3. Parmelee DX, Stephen DD, Borges N J. Medical students’ Attitudes about Team-Based Learning in a Pre–clinical Curriculum. Medical Education Online 2009;14:1-7
4. Learning in small groups: Joy Crosby: Pages 189-202 | published online: 03 Jul 2009
5. Davis B. Tools for Teaching. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey‑Bass Publishers; 1993.6. Wood D F.ABC of Learning and Teaching in Medicine Problem Based Learning. British Medical Journal.2003; 326 (7384):328–330.
7. Kelly PA, Haidet P, Schneider V, Searle N, Seidel CL, Richards BF.etl. A Comparison of In-class Learner Engagement Across Lecture, Problem–Based Learning, and Team Learning Using the STROBE Classroom Observation Tool. Teaching and learning in Medicine 2005; 17(2):112-118
8. Koles P, Nelson S, Stolfi A, Parmelee D, DeStephen D. Active learning in a year 2 pathology curriculum. Medical Education.2005; 39:1045-1055
9. Thompson B M, Schneider VF, Haidet P, Perkwski LC and Richads B F. Factors Influencing Implementation of Team–Based Learning in Health Sciences Education. Academic Medicine, 2007; 82(10):S53-S56
10. Rider E, Brashers V &Costanza M. Using interprofessional team- based learning to develop health care policy. Medical Education 2008; 42:513-543.
11. Haidet P, Fecile ML. Team-based learning: A Promising Strategy to Foster Active Learning in Cancer. Education, Journal of Cancer Education.2006:21:3,125-128.
12. Thompson BM, Schneider VF, Haidet P, Levine R, McMahon KK, Perkowski LC, Richards BF. Team-based learning at ten medical schools: two years later. Medical Education.2007; 41:250-257.
13. Merrill, M. D.A pebble-in-the-pond Model for Instructional Design, PerformanceImprovement.2002;41(7):39-44.
14. Kole PG, Stolfi A, Borjes NJ, Neson S, Parmelee DX .The Impact of Team-Based Learning on Medical Students Academic Performance. Academic Medicine.2010; 85(11):1739-1745.
15. Blooms B.S. Taxonomy of educational Objectives handbook.1956. In Phillips N, Duke M. the questioning skills of clinical teachers and preceptors: a comparative study. Journal of Advanced Nursing.2001: 33(4), 523-529.
16. Phillips N, Duke M. The questioning skills of clinical teachers and preceptors: a comparative study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2001; 33 (4), 523-529.
17. Vasan NS, DeFouw D. Team learning in a medical gross anatomy course. Medical Education.2005; 39:524
18. Thompson B M, Schneider VF, Haidet P, Perkwski LC and Richads B F. Factors Influencing
Implementation of Team–Based Learning in Health Sciences Education. Academic Medicine, 2007; 82(10): S53-S56
19. Jensen E. Brain-based learning: the new paradigm of teaching. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, C A.:Cowin Press;2008.In Persky AM, Pollack GM.A modified Team-based learning Physiology Course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2011; 75(10):204.
20. Sharmila S R, Mungal SU, More SR. Developing competencies of medical students using group discussion as TL method. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences.2014;13:24‑27
21. Annamalai N, Manivel R, Palanisamy R. Small group discussion: Students perspectives. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 2015;5: S18-S20
22. Sajjad S. Effective teaching methods at higher education level. Pak J .2010; 11:29‑43.
23. Wilma DSCR, SureshDR,ChandrakalaM V. Evaluation of Small Group Discussion as a Teaching –Learning Method in Biochemistry for First Year MBBS Students: A PilotStudy. South East Asian Journal of Medical Education .2014; 8:43-47
24. Bobby Z, Koner BC, Sen SK, Renuka P, Nandakumar DN, Nandeesha H, et al. Small group discussion followed by presentation as a revision exercise at the end of a teaching module in biochemistry.The National Medical Journal of India. 2004;17(1):36-38
