Back to Journals » Advances in Medical Education and Practice » Volume 9

Matching medical student achievement to learning objectives and outcomes: a paradigm shift for an implemented teaching module

Authors Atta IS, AlQahtani FN

Received 3 December 2017

Accepted for publication 7 February 2018

Published 9 April 2018 Volume 2018:9 Pages 227—233

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S158784

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Md Anwarul Majumder


Ihab Shafek Atta,1 Fahd Nasser AlQahtani2

1Pathology Department, Faculty of Medicine (Assuit Branch), Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; 2Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Albaha University, Al-Aqiq, Saudi Arabia

Introduction: Low student achievement in a basic imaging module was the impetus for an assessment of the module.
Methods: A valid, reliable, and structured Likert scale was designed to measure the degree of student satisfaction with the domains of the module, including learning objectives (LO), teaching strategy and tools (TT), assessment tools (AT), and allotted credit hours (CH). Further analysis was conducted of student dissatisfaction to determine the subdomain in which module improvement was to be implemented. Statistical analysis of data among Likert scale domains was conducted.
Results: Likert scale data showed the TT domain to be the major reason for low student achievement. Statistical studies revealed 57/117 students (48.6%) were dissatisfied with TT, compared with LO 16/117 (13.6%), AT 54/117 (46.1%), and CH 12/117 (10.2%). Significant P-values were obtained for LO vs TT (P<0.0001), LO vs AT (P<0.0001), LO vs CH (P<0.03), TT vs CH (P<0.0001), and AT vs CH (P<0.0001). No significant difference was observed between TT and AT (P<0.29). Regarding TT, 41/117 (34.9%) students were dissatisfied with lectures (L) compared to hospital-based teaching (HPT) 24/117 (20%), problem-based learning (PBL) 8/117 (6.8%), self-directed learning (SDL) 3/117 (2.5%), and seminars (S) 4/117 (3.4%). Significant P-values were obtained for L vs HPT (P<0.0001), L vs PBL (P<0.0001), L vs SDL (P<0.0001), L vs S (P<0.0001), HPT vs PBL (P<0.002), HPT vs SDL (P<0.0001), and HPT vs S (P<0.0001). Regarding lecture modifications, student satisfaction was 78.3% compared to 52% before modification. A significant P-value (P<0.0001) was obtained between Likert scale domains before and after modification. Lecture modification resulted in a good student response and satisfaction.
Conclusion: The major reason for low student achievement was the teaching tools, particularly the lectures. Major modifications to lectures improved student achievement. The students and most of the teaching staff were highly satisfied with the modifications, which provided for reciprocal discussion and interaction. These results should encourage and guide other medical schools to investigate the points of weakness in their curriculum.

Keywords: teaching strategy, teaching tools, learning objectives, interactive lecture, student performance, radiology teaching, curriculum reform, curriculum evaluation, radiology lecture

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]