反思写作对印度医科学生学习能力的影响。

IF 1.9
Bioinformation Pub Date : 2024-05-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.6026/973206300200587
Rekha Jiwane, Vivekanand Gajbhiye, Sandip Hulke, Ruchi Singh, Ragini Shrivastava, Varun Malhotra
{"title":"反思写作对印度医科学生学习能力的影响。","authors":"Rekha Jiwane, Vivekanand Gajbhiye, Sandip Hulke, Ruchi Singh, Ragini Shrivastava, Varun Malhotra","doi":"10.6026/973206300200587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Reflective writing develops meta-cognition among students. Therefore, it is of interest to compare effectiveness of post lecture reflective writing to didactic lecture between individual and group reflective writing. Hence, we included 124 first-year students from AIIMS Bhopal, India and divided them in two groups of 62 students. Both groups took a pre-test using a reflection questionnaire. Students were taught reflective writing. Both groups attended physiology lectures on two different topics. First lecture on body fluids where Group A wrote reflections individually and Group B did so in sub-groups (B1 to B6). After another lecture on Pathophysiology of oedema, Group A wrote reflections in groups and Group B wrote individually (A1 to A6). Both groups took a test in the form of MCQ about reflective writing on lectures. After intervention both groups took a post-test using a reflection questionnaire. Mean and standard deviation of Pre-test is 3.86 ± 0.86 and Post-test is 7.58 ± 1.01, respectively. The Mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.05 ± 4.41 and in group is 27.45 ± 3.93, respectively with p-value < 0.05. Evaluation of students who wrote reflection in groups after second lecture the mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.22 ± 4.64 and in group is 27.03 ± 2.87 respectively with p-value < 0.05. The performance of students who wrote reflection in groups is not satisfactory as compared to students who wrote their reflection individually.</p>","PeriodicalId":8962,"journal":{"name":"Bioinformation","volume":"20 5","pages":"587-591"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11309105/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of reflection writing on the learning ability of Indian medical students.\",\"authors\":\"Rekha Jiwane, Vivekanand Gajbhiye, Sandip Hulke, Ruchi Singh, Ragini Shrivastava, Varun Malhotra\",\"doi\":\"10.6026/973206300200587\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Reflective writing develops meta-cognition among students. Therefore, it is of interest to compare effectiveness of post lecture reflective writing to didactic lecture between individual and group reflective writing. Hence, we included 124 first-year students from AIIMS Bhopal, India and divided them in two groups of 62 students. Both groups took a pre-test using a reflection questionnaire. Students were taught reflective writing. Both groups attended physiology lectures on two different topics. First lecture on body fluids where Group A wrote reflections individually and Group B did so in sub-groups (B1 to B6). After another lecture on Pathophysiology of oedema, Group A wrote reflections in groups and Group B wrote individually (A1 to A6). Both groups took a test in the form of MCQ about reflective writing on lectures. After intervention both groups took a post-test using a reflection questionnaire. Mean and standard deviation of Pre-test is 3.86 ± 0.86 and Post-test is 7.58 ± 1.01, respectively. The Mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.05 ± 4.41 and in group is 27.45 ± 3.93, respectively with p-value < 0.05. Evaluation of students who wrote reflection in groups after second lecture the mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.22 ± 4.64 and in group is 27.03 ± 2.87 respectively with p-value < 0.05. The performance of students who wrote reflection in groups is not satisfactory as compared to students who wrote their reflection individually.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioinformation\",\"volume\":\"20 5\",\"pages\":\"587-591\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11309105/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioinformation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6026/973206300200587\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioinformation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6026/973206300200587","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

反思性写作可以培养学生的元认知。因此,我们有兴趣比较个人反思性写作和小组反思性写作在授课后的效果。因此,我们将印度博帕尔 AIIMS 的 124 名一年级学生分成两组,每组 62 人。两组学生都使用反思问卷进行了前测。学生们学习了反思性写作。两组学生都参加了两个不同主题的生理学讲座。首先是关于体液的讲座,A 组学生单独撰写反思,B 组学生分组(B1 至 B6)撰写反思。在另一个关于水肿病理生理学的讲座后,A 组以小组为单位撰写反思,B 组以个人为单位撰写反思(A1 至 A6)。两组学生都参加了关于讲座反思写作的 MCQ 测试。干预结束后,两组学生都接受了反思问卷的后测。前测的平均值和标准差分别为 3.86 ± 0.86,后测的平均值和标准差分别为 7.58 ± 1.01。个人反思的平均值和标准差分别为 38.05 ± 4.41,小组反思的平均值和标准差分别为 27.45 ± 3.93,P 值均小于 0.05。对第二次授课后以小组为单位撰写反思的学生进行了评价,个人撰写反思的平均值和标准差分别为 38.22 ± 4.64,小组撰写反思的平均值和标准差分别为 27.03 ± 2.87,P 值小于 0.05。与单独撰写反思的学生相比,分组撰写反思的学生的表现并不令人满意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of reflection writing on the learning ability of Indian medical students.

Reflective writing develops meta-cognition among students. Therefore, it is of interest to compare effectiveness of post lecture reflective writing to didactic lecture between individual and group reflective writing. Hence, we included 124 first-year students from AIIMS Bhopal, India and divided them in two groups of 62 students. Both groups took a pre-test using a reflection questionnaire. Students were taught reflective writing. Both groups attended physiology lectures on two different topics. First lecture on body fluids where Group A wrote reflections individually and Group B did so in sub-groups (B1 to B6). After another lecture on Pathophysiology of oedema, Group A wrote reflections in groups and Group B wrote individually (A1 to A6). Both groups took a test in the form of MCQ about reflective writing on lectures. After intervention both groups took a post-test using a reflection questionnaire. Mean and standard deviation of Pre-test is 3.86 ± 0.86 and Post-test is 7.58 ± 1.01, respectively. The Mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.05 ± 4.41 and in group is 27.45 ± 3.93, respectively with p-value < 0.05. Evaluation of students who wrote reflection in groups after second lecture the mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.22 ± 4.64 and in group is 27.03 ± 2.87 respectively with p-value < 0.05. The performance of students who wrote reflection in groups is not satisfactory as compared to students who wrote their reflection individually.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bioinformation
Bioinformation MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
×
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