METHODS: Eighteen students with prior experience in traditional PDPBL processes participated in the study, divided into three groups to perform PDPBL sessions with various triggers from pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmaceutics, and clinical pharmacy fields, while utilizing chat AI provided by ChatGPT to assist with data searching and problem-solving. Questionnaires were used to collect data on the impact of ChatGPT on students' satisfaction, engagement, participation, and learning experience during the PBL sessions.
RESULTS: The survey revealed that ChatGPT improved group collaboration and engagement during PDPBL, while increasing motivation and encouraging more questions. Nevertheless, some students encountered difficulties understanding ChatGPT's information and questioned its reliability and credibility. Despite these challenges, most students saw ChatGPT's potential to eventually replace traditional information-seeking methods.
CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that ChatGPT has the potential to enhance PDPBL in pharmacy education. However, further research is needed to examine the validity and reliability of the information provided by ChatGPT, and its impact on a larger sample size.
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: A cross-sectional online survey involving second-year pharmacy students of Monash Malaysia (MA) and Monash Australia (PA) campuses was conducted. The survey consisted of 15 Likert-scale multiple-choice questions and an open-ended question. Data were analysed statistically.
FINDINGS: Students at both MA and PA campuses were satisfied with the remote online learning experienced during the pandemic but indicated a preference for a blended learning approach. Students at the MA campus felt that on-campus face-to-face classes were more engaging and advantageous for their learning and skills development (P
Materials and Methods: A qualitative research method was used to generate findings in this study. The data collection methods included focus group discussions and interviews. Triangulation methods were used to ensure the validity and reliability of the qualitative data analyzed in this study. The thematic analysis of the data collected in this study helped to garner insights into the perception of participants and experts about the use of GaMed@™ for the delivery of ECG lessons.
Results: A total number of 32 medical students and four experts in the fields of user experience, communication, social psychology, and game design participated in this study. The findings showed that in spite of the negative reports about the user experience and application of GaMed@™, the participants and experts affirmed its positive impact on the increased motivation and engagement of users.
Conclusions: The impact of this concept can be maximized by tailoring the game design to foster-positive learning attributes, behaviors, and outcomes in students. However, further research studies must be conducted to investigate the impact of gamification designs on specific learning outcomes in students.
METHODS: Forty third-year undergraduate dental students were randomly assigned into FC (n = 20) or LD (n = 20) cohort. Each student attended six teaching sessions, each to teach students' competency in fabricating one type of wire component, for a total competency in fabricating six wire components over the course of six teaching sessions. Either LD or FC teaching methods were used. After each session, wire assignments had to be submitted. Wire assignments were then evaluated using a blinded wire-bending assessment protocol. As part of their formative assessment, the assessment results were distributed to students, lecturers, and technicians before the next session. After the first session (T0) and at the end of all six sessions (T1), students completed a self-reported questionnaire.
RESULTS: The mean wire-bending scores for FC were significantly higher than LD for two of the six assignments, namely the Adams clasp (p
METHODS: In this quasi-experimental, posttest-only nonequivalent control group design, the subjects were undergraduate students who had enrolled in Pediatric Nursing II at Islamic Azad University in Iran. The experiment was conducted over a period of eight weeks, one two-hour session and two two-hour sessions. Two experimental groups, Pure Problem-Based Learning (PPBL) and the Hybrid Problem- Based Learning (HPBL), and one Lecturing or Conventional Teaching and Learning (COTL) group were involved. In the PPBL group, PBL method with guided questions and a tutor, and in the HPBL group, problem-based learning method, some guided questions, minimal lecturing and a tutor were used. The COTL group, however, underwent learning using conventional instruction utilizing full lecture. The three groups were compared on cognitive performances, namely, test performance, mental effort, and instructional efficiency. Two instruments, i.e., Pediatric Nursing Performance Test (PNPT) and Paas Mental Effort Rating Scale (PMER) were used. In addition, the two-Dimensional Instructional Efficiency Index (IEI) formula was utilized. The statistical analyses used were ANOVA, ANCOVA, and mixed between-within subjects ANOVA.
RESULTS: Results showed that the PPBL and HPBL instructional methods, in comparison with COTL, enhanced the students' overall and higher-order performances in Pediatric Nursing, and induced higher level of instructional efficiency with less mental effort (p
METHODS: A total of 88 final year medical students were assigned to either an educational intervention group or a control group in a non-equivalent group post-test only design. Participants in the intervention group received a tutorial on the use of a mnemonic checklist aimed to minimize cognitive errors in clinical decision-making. Two weeks later, the participants in both groups were given a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases, with 3 items per case, to assess their clinical decisions when additional data are given in the case scenarios.
RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney U-test performed on the total scores from both groups showed no statistical significance (U = 792, z = -1.408, p = 0.159). When comparisons were made for the first half and the second half of the SCT, it was found that participants in the intervention group performed significantly better than participants in the control group in the first half of the test, with median scores of 9.15 (IQR 8.00-10.28) vs. 8.18 (IQR 7.16-9.24) respectively, U = 642.5, z = -2.661, p = 0.008. No significant difference was found in the second half of the test, with the median score of 9.58 (IQR 8.90-10.56) vs. 9.81 (IQR 8.83-11.12) for the intervention group and control group respectively (U = 897.5, z = -0.524, p = 0.60).
CONCLUSION: Checklist use in differential diagnoses consideration did show some benefit. However, this benefit seems to have been traded off by the time and effort in using it. More research is needed to determine whether this benefit could be translated into clinical practice after repetitive use.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of the tutors who had used the instrument was conducted to determine whether the assessment instrument or form was user-friendly. The 4 competencies assessed, using a 5-point rating scale, were (1) participation and communication skills, (2) cooperation or team-building skills, (3) comprehension or reasoning skills and (4) knowledge or information-gathering skills. Tutors were given a set of criteria guidelines for scoring the students' performance in these 4 competencies. Tutors were not attached to a particular PBL group, but took turns to facilitate different groups on different case or problem discussions. Assessment scores for one cohort of undergraduate medical students in their respective PBL groups in Year I (2003/2004) and Year II (2004/2005) were analysed. The consistency of scores was analysed using intraclass correlation.
RESULTS: The majority of the tutors surveyed expressed no difficulty in using the instrument and agreed that it helped them assess the students fairly. Analysis of the scores obtained for the above cohort indicated that the different raters were relatively consistent in their assessment of student performance, despite a small number consistently showing either "strict" or "indiscriminate" rating practice.
CONCLUSION: The instrument designed for the assessment of student performance in the PBL tutorial classroom setting is user-friendly and is reliable when used judiciously with the criteria guidelines provided.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lecturers and students in the Phase (Year) II programme were asked to fill questionnaires following the second and fourth PBL cases. The two sets of survey responses were compared to see whether the students' and teachers' perceptions had changed over the 5-month period.
RESULTS: Students' responses from both surveys (1 and 2) were similar in that a majority agreed that the PBL tutorials had encouraged the seeking of information (66% and 67%, respectively), had improved understanding (57% and 56%), integration (65% and 70%) and application (50% and 64%) of knowledge. However, the views given in the form of written comments, following their positive responses, were somewhat contradictory. A large number of students (38% and 40%) faced difficulties in getting involved in discussions during the PBL tutorial and a majority (73% and 82%) preferred the normal subject-based tutorials. The reasons given by approximately 20% of the students were that the subject-based tutorials were more efficient for obtaining information and/or that the information had been pre-selected by the lecturers. More than 80% of the lecturers (in both surveys) perceived that the students had identified the appropriate learning objectives and covered the subject matter. The percentage of lecturers who agreed that PBL tutorials encouraged rapport and teamwork amongst students had increased in the second survey, from 70% to 92% and 55% to 83% respectively.
CONCLUSION: Implementing PBL is not simply a matter of developing new teaching materials and new effective ways of presenting them. It requires a paradigm shift, a change in the roles of students and teachers, and time.