METHODS: Ten students who previously underwent the learning module were recruited through purposive sampling. The inclusion criteria were: (a) Fourth-year medical students; and (b) Completed psychiatry posting with the new module. Students who dropped out or were unable to participate in data collection were excluded. Two online focus group discussions (FGDs) with five participants each were conducted by an independent facilitator, guided by a questioning route. The data were transcribed verbatim and coded using the thematic analysis approach to identify themes.
RESULTS: Three main themes of their learning experience were identified: (1) fulfilment of the desired pedagogy (2), realism of the clinical case, and (3) ease of use related to technical settings. The pedagogy theme was further divided into the following subthemes: level of entry for students, flexibility of presentation of content, provision of learning guidance, collaboration with peers, provision of feedback, and assessment of performance. The realism theme had two subthemes: how much the virtual patient experience mimicked an actual patient and how much the case scenario reflected real conditions in the Malaysian context. The technical setting theme entailed two subthemes: access to the software and appearance of the user interface. The study findings are considered in the light of learning formats, pedagogical and learning theories, and technological frameworks.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings shed light on both positive and negative aspects of using virtual patients for medical students' psychiatry posting, which opens room for further improvement of their usage in undergraduate psychiatry education.
METHODS: Final-year medical students across three campuses (Ireland, Bahrain and Malaysia) were invited to share experiences of feedback in individual semi-structured interviews. The data were thematically analysed and explored through the lens of self-regulatory learning theory (SRL).
RESULTS: Feedback interacts with learners' knowledge and beliefs about themselves and about learning. They use feedback to change both their cognitive and behavioural learning strategies, but how they choose which feedback to implement is complex. They struggle to generate learning strategies and expect teachers to make sense of the "how" in addition to the "what"" in planning future learning. Even when not actioned, learners spend time with feedback and it influences future learning.
CONCLUSION: By exploring our findings through the lens of self-regulation learning, we advance conceptual understanding of feedback responses. Learners' ability to generate "next steps" may be overestimated. When feedback causes negative emotions, energy is diverted from learning to processing distress. Perceived non-implementation of feedback should not be confused with ignoring it; feedback that is not actioned often impacts learning.
METHOD: An explanatory mixed method research design was carried out on first year medical students at a private university in Malaysia. In Phase I, a survey was conducted to explore the effectiveness of jigsaw learning. Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated using SPSS. In Phase II, a focus group interview was conducted to explore their in-depth experiences. Qualitative data were thematically analysed.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven students participated in the survey and seven students took part in the focus group interview. Quantitative data analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in the student's individual accountability, promotive interaction, positive interdependence, interpersonal skill, communication skill, teamwork skill, critical thinking and consensus building after jigsaw learning sessions. Qualitative data explained their experiences in-depth.
CONCLUSION: Jigsaw cooperative learning improves collaboration, communication, cooperation and critical thinking among the undergraduate medical students. Educators should use jigsaw learning methods to encourage effective collaboration and team working. Future studies should explore the effectiveness of the jigsaw cooperative learning technique in promoting interprofessional collaboration in the workplace.
Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey. A convenient sample of 310 preclinical students of a public medical school in Malaysia were invited to participate. Validation data were collected using a revised 40-item, 5-point Likert scale learning space questionnaire. The questionnaires were administered online via a student e-learning platform. Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS version 24. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure of the revised questionnaire to provide evidence for construct validity. To assess the internal consistency of the revised questionnaire, Cronbach's alpha coefficients (α) were computed across all the items as well as for items within each of the factor.
Results: A total of 223 (71.94%) preclinical students completed and returned the questionnaire. In the final analysis, exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring and an oblimin rotation identified a six-factor, 20-item factor solution. Reliability analysis reported good internal consistency for the revised questionnaire, with an overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.845, and Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.800 to 0.925 for the six factors.
Conclusions: This study established evidence for the construct validity and internal consistency of the revised questionnaire. The revised questionnaire appears to have utility as an instrument to investigate learning space preferences in Malaysian medical schools.