Assessment of the effectiveness and perception of different teaching techniques used in pharmacology among students.

Journal of postgraduate medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-13 DOI:10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_44_24
T A Jaju, U I Parmar, S V Gajbhiye, D G Kurle, R M Shah
{"title":"Assessment of the effectiveness and perception of different teaching techniques used in pharmacology among students.","authors":"T A Jaju, U I Parmar, S V Gajbhiye, D G Kurle, R M Shah","doi":"10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_44_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pharmacology is one of the most dynamic and evolving branches, not only in the concepts but also in teaching methodologies. Many attempts have been made by various colleges all over the world to make the teaching of pharmacology more interesting and relevant.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The literature from two databases (Google Scholar and PubMed) published between 2005 and 2020 were searched using terms related to \"Teaching Techniques\" AND \"Pharmacology.\" The articles with unavailable full-text those published in conference proceedings, duplicate studies, and articles published in languages apart from English were excluded. Teaching techniques were compared using success and popularity ratios, which were calculated on the basis of student's test score and their feedback with an average minimum score of 50%, which was considered the benchmark.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of the 1,093 articles reviewed, only 95 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were conducted among medical (64.21%) and pharmacy (28.42%) students. Most common teaching techniques belonged to computer and case-based (21.05% each) types followed by multiple techniques (11.58%) types. Flipped, case-based, multiple methods, modules, and other innovative methods have been well received by students with a popularity ratio ranging between 100 and 81, and improvement in students' test scores further demonstrated their utility with a success ratio between 100 and 88. The effectiveness and popularity of computer-based techniques and student-centered techniques were found to be moderate (73 and 71). Although popular, team-based techniques and simulations seemed to be less effective in improving test scores (50 and 33, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a need for periodic up-gradation in techniques utilized for teaching pharmacology. Every teaching technique has its strengths and weaknesses. They need to be utilized as per the student's requirement.</p>","PeriodicalId":94105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of postgraduate medicine","volume":" ","pages":"217-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11722705/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of postgraduate medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_44_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pharmacology is one of the most dynamic and evolving branches, not only in the concepts but also in teaching methodologies. Many attempts have been made by various colleges all over the world to make the teaching of pharmacology more interesting and relevant.

Materials and methods: The literature from two databases (Google Scholar and PubMed) published between 2005 and 2020 were searched using terms related to "Teaching Techniques" AND "Pharmacology." The articles with unavailable full-text those published in conference proceedings, duplicate studies, and articles published in languages apart from English were excluded. Teaching techniques were compared using success and popularity ratios, which were calculated on the basis of student's test score and their feedback with an average minimum score of 50%, which was considered the benchmark.

Results: Out of the 1,093 articles reviewed, only 95 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were conducted among medical (64.21%) and pharmacy (28.42%) students. Most common teaching techniques belonged to computer and case-based (21.05% each) types followed by multiple techniques (11.58%) types. Flipped, case-based, multiple methods, modules, and other innovative methods have been well received by students with a popularity ratio ranging between 100 and 81, and improvement in students' test scores further demonstrated their utility with a success ratio between 100 and 88. The effectiveness and popularity of computer-based techniques and student-centered techniques were found to be moderate (73 and 71). Although popular, team-based techniques and simulations seemed to be less effective in improving test scores (50 and 33, respectively).

Conclusion: There is a need for periodic up-gradation in techniques utilized for teaching pharmacology. Every teaching technique has its strengths and weaknesses. They need to be utilized as per the student's requirement.

药理学不同教学方法在学生中的有效性和认知评估。
导读:药理学是最具活力和发展的学科之一,不仅在概念上,而且在教学方法上。为了使药理学的教学更加有趣和切合实际,世界各地的大学都进行了许多尝试。材料和方法:使用“教学技术”和“药理学”相关术语检索2005年至2020年间发表的两个数据库(b谷歌Scholar和PubMed)的文献。无法获得全文的文章、发表在会议论文集中的文章、重复研究和以英语以外的语言发表的文章被排除在外。教学技巧的比较采用成功率和受欢迎率,这是根据学生的考试成绩和他们的反馈计算出来的,平均最低分数为50%,这被认为是基准。结果:在1093篇文献中,只有95篇研究符合纳入标准。以医学(64.21%)和药学(28.42%)学生为主。最常见的教学方法是计算机和案例教学法(各占21.05%),其次是多种教学法(11.58%)。翻转式、案例式、多方法、模块式等创新方法受到了学生的好评,普及率在100 - 81之间,学生考试成绩的提高进一步证明了它们的实用性,成功率在100 - 88之间。以计算机为基础的技术和以学生为中心的技术的有效性和普及程度是中等的(73和71)。虽然很流行,但基于团队的技术和模拟似乎在提高考试成绩方面效果较差(分别为50分和33分)。结论:药理学教学技术需要定期升级。每一种教学方法都有其优点和缺点。他们需要根据学生的要求来使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信