Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student Perception of Active Learning Group in a Problem-Based Learning Curricular Environment

Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

The “Active Learning Group” (ALG) described in this paper is a hybrid form of problem-based learning established at the Cooper Medical School of Rowan University 5 years ago. The present study relates to an overall effort to ensure continuous quality improvement in the undergraduate medical education curriculum. As part of the course evaluation, the Office of Medical Education uses a survey instrument to collect student opinions about the ALG format and process. The survey instrument focuses on three domains: (1) professionalism; (2) positive learning experience; and (3) partnership in learning (collaboration). Ninety-five percent of the students value professionalism highly, especially teamwork. The survey results and student evaluations of the cases and facilitators allow us to identify and address deficits in the ALG process as a whole, paying special attention to the quality of the cases and facilitator contributions. In the future, items that elucidate student reflective practice will be included in the survey instrument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bligh DA. What is the use of lectures? The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. 2000. https://books.google.com/books?id=nXEmAQAAIAAJ. Accessed August 4, 2017.

  2. Dochy F, Degers M, Van Den Bossche P, Struyven K. Students’ perceptions of a problem-based learning environment. Learn Environ Res. 2005;8(1):41–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-7948-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith KA, Sheppard SD, Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practice. J Eng Educ. 2005;94:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McKeachie W. Research on college teaching. Educ Perspect. 1972;11:3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chickering A, Gamson Z. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bull. 1987;39:3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bonwell CC, Eison JA. Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Alessio H. Student perceptions about and performance in problem-based learning. J Scholar Teach Learn. 2004;4:23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vasan NS, DeFouw D, Compton S. A survey of student perceptions of team-based learning in anatomy curriculum: favorable views unrelated to grades. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(4):150–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nunnally J, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Aiken LR. Number of response categories and statistics on a teacher rating scale. Educ Psychol Meas. 1983;43(2):397–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448304300209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Weng LJ. Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 2004;64(6):956–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404268674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lozano LM, García-Cueto E, Muñiz J. Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology. 2008;4(2):73–9. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mayo P, Donnelly MB, Nash PP, Schwartz RW. Student perceptions of tutor effectiveness in a problem-based surgery clerkship. Teach Learn Med. 1993;5(4):227–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401339309539628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Das M, Mpofu D, Dunn E, Lanphear JH. Self and tutor evaluations in problem-based learning tutorials: is there a relationship? Med Educ. 1998;32(4):411–8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00217.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Senocak E. Development of an instrument for assessing undergraduate science students’ perceptions: the problem-based learning environment inventory. J Sci Educ Technol. 2009;18(6):560–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9173-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Joseph N, Rai S, Jain A, Nelliyanil M, Kotian SM. Perception towards problem based learning among medical students of a private medical college in South India. BJMMR. 2015;9(5):1–10. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJMMR/2015/19200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaufman DM, Holmes DB. Tutoring in problem-based learning: perceptions of teachers and students. Med Educ. 1996;30(5):371–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1996.tb00850.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McLean M. What can we learn from facilitator and student perceptions of facilitation skills and roles in the first year of a problem-based learning curriculum? BMC Med Educ. 2003;3:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Barrows HS. A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Med Educ. 1986;20(6):481–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Neville AJ. Problem-based learning and medical education forty years on: a review of its effects on knowledge and clinical performance. Med Princ Pract. 2009;18(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000163038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson B, Ulseth R. Professional competency development in a PBL curriculum. 2015. Presented at the 5th International Research Symposium on PBL, part of International Joint Conference on the Learner in Engineering Education (IJCLEE2015), Mondragon University, 6-9 July 2015. http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ie-fac-pubs. Accessed 25 August 2017.

  22. Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J. Engr Educ. 2004;93:223–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Susan Perlis, Associate Dean, Office of the Medical Education, for her support.

Funding

This study is supported in part by the research and development office of the CMSRU.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, 401 South Broadway, Camden, NJ, 08043, USA

    Cheryl Melovitz-Vasan & Nagaswami Vasan

  2. Office of Medical Education, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA

    Matthew Gentile & Susan Huff

Authors
  1. Cheryl Melovitz-Vasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Gentile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan Huff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nagaswami Vasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nagaswami Vasan.

Ethics declarations

Since our study was part of continuing efforts to improve teaching, learning, and assessment, the students consented to the study, which also received IRB-expedited approval from the Rowan University (IRB protocol no. Pro 2017001673).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

DHHS Federal Wide Assurance Identifier: FWA00007111

Appendix 1 (Questionnaire) [8]

Appendix 1 (Questionnaire) [8]

  1. 1.

    ALG helped me to increase my understanding of the course material.

  2. 2.

    I came prepared for each ALG session.

  3. 3.

    ALG cases helped me to master core information.

  4. 4.

    My ability to work as a team with my peers is necessary for future medical practice.

  5. 5.

    I generally felt prepared for the block course examinations.

  6. 6.

    Discussions of the ALG cases were useful learning activities.

  7. 7.

    I learn better from lecture presentations than small group activity.

  8. 8.

    Solving problems/cases in a group is an effective way to learn course material.

  9. 9.

    I learned useful additional information during the ALG discussions.

  10. 10.

    ALG helped me prepare for course examinations.

  11. 11.

    The ALG discussions allowed me to correct my mistakes and improve understanding of the concepts.

  12. 12.

    I have a positive attitude about working with my peers.

  13. 13.

    The ability to collaborate with my peers is necessary if I am to be successful as a student.

  14. 14.

    Solving problems in a group is an effective way to practice what I have learned.

  15. 15.

    My ALG members worked well together.

  16. 16.

    I contributed meaningfully to the ALG discussions.

  17. 17.

    Most students were attentive during ALG sessions.

  18. 18.

    I paid attention most of the time during the ALG sessions.

  19. 19.

    The ALG format was helpful in developing my information synthesizing skills.

  20. 20.

    There was mutual respect for other group members.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Melovitz-Vasan, C., Gentile, M., Huff, S. et al. Student Perception of Active Learning Group in a Problem-Based Learning Curricular Environment. Med.Sci.Educ. 28, 195–201 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-0541-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-018-0541-6

Keywords

search

Navigation