比较案例教学法和讲座教学法在药理学教学中的应用:评估学习成果、记忆保留和学生满意度在沙特阿拉伯吉达的沙特国王本阿卜杜勒阿齐兹健康科学大学医学院。

IF 2 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Razaz Abdulaziz Felemban, Muhammad Anwar Khan, Nouf Sulaiman Alharbi
{"title":"比较案例教学法和讲座教学法在药理学教学中的应用:评估学习成果、记忆保留和学生满意度在沙特阿拉伯吉达的沙特国王本阿卜杜勒阿齐兹健康科学大学医学院。","authors":"Razaz Abdulaziz Felemban, Muhammad Anwar Khan, Nouf Sulaiman Alharbi","doi":"10.1177/23821205251332814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Teaching pharmacology is challenging due to its complex content and extensive terminology. Traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) limits engagement and retention, while case-based learning (CBL) uses real-world scenarios to improve critical thinking. Although prior research has explored CBL's impact in pharmacology education, few studies directly compare CBL and LBL in terms of memory retention and student satisfaction over a prolonged period. This study addresses this gap by comparing both methods over 4 weeks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two educational sessions, unrelated to the curriculum or block assessments, were conducted with third- and fourth-year preclinical medical students, where basic pharmacology is delivered. Students were randomly assigned to either LBL or CBL for each session. Short-term retention was assessed immediately after the sessions, while long-term retention was evaluated 4 weeks later using multiple-choice questions designed to measure recall and cognitive understanding. Additionally, a general electronic survey was conducted to evaluate student satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comparative analysis revealed notable patterns in retention and knowledge acquisition. Short-term retention was slightly higher in the LBL group (mean 7.94, SD 1.51) than in the CBL group (mean 7.30, SD 1.60), though the difference was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> = .076). Conversely, long-term retention was slightly higher in the CBL group (mean 6.95, SD 1.87) than in the LBL group (mean 6.22, SD 1.88), but this difference was also not significant (<i>P</i> = .095). Within-group analysis, the results showed a significant decline in long-term retention for knowledge-based questions in LBL, while CBL maintained retention over time (<i>P</i> < .001). No significant differences in cognition or satisfaction were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CBL enhances long-term retention and knowledge acquisition, supporting its integration into pharmacology education. Further research should explore its broader application in medical curricula.</p>","PeriodicalId":45121,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","volume":"12 ","pages":"23821205251332814"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12069955/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Case-Based and Lecture-Based Learning Methods in Pharmacology Teaching: Assessing Learning Outcomes, Memory Retention, and Student Satisfaction at the College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.\",\"authors\":\"Razaz Abdulaziz Felemban, Muhammad Anwar Khan, Nouf Sulaiman Alharbi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23821205251332814\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Teaching pharmacology is challenging due to its complex content and extensive terminology. Traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) limits engagement and retention, while case-based learning (CBL) uses real-world scenarios to improve critical thinking. Although prior research has explored CBL's impact in pharmacology education, few studies directly compare CBL and LBL in terms of memory retention and student satisfaction over a prolonged period. This study addresses this gap by comparing both methods over 4 weeks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two educational sessions, unrelated to the curriculum or block assessments, were conducted with third- and fourth-year preclinical medical students, where basic pharmacology is delivered. Students were randomly assigned to either LBL or CBL for each session. Short-term retention was assessed immediately after the sessions, while long-term retention was evaluated 4 weeks later using multiple-choice questions designed to measure recall and cognitive understanding. Additionally, a general electronic survey was conducted to evaluate student satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comparative analysis revealed notable patterns in retention and knowledge acquisition. Short-term retention was slightly higher in the LBL group (mean 7.94, SD 1.51) than in the CBL group (mean 7.30, SD 1.60), though the difference was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> = .076). Conversely, long-term retention was slightly higher in the CBL group (mean 6.95, SD 1.87) than in the LBL group (mean 6.22, SD 1.88), but this difference was also not significant (<i>P</i> = .095). Within-group analysis, the results showed a significant decline in long-term retention for knowledge-based questions in LBL, while CBL maintained retention over time (<i>P</i> < .001). No significant differences in cognition or satisfaction were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CBL enhances long-term retention and knowledge acquisition, supporting its integration into pharmacology education. Further research should explore its broader application in medical curricula.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"23821205251332814\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12069955/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205251332814\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205251332814","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:药理学教学是具有挑战性的,由于其复杂的内容和广泛的术语。传统的基于讲座的学习(LBL)限制了参与和保留,而基于案例的学习(CBL)使用现实世界的场景来提高批判性思维。虽然先前的研究已经探讨了CBL对药理学教育的影响,但很少有研究直接比较CBL和LBL在长期记忆保持和学生满意度方面的影响。本研究通过在4周内比较两种方法来解决这一差距。方法:在三年级和四年级的基础医学院学生中进行了两次与课程或模块评估无关的教育课程,其中讲授了基础药理学。学生们被随机分配到LBL或CBL每个疗程。短期记忆在课程结束后立即进行评估,而长期记忆在4周后通过多项选择题进行评估,这些选择题旨在衡量记忆和认知理解。此外,还进行了一项一般性的电子调查来评估学生的满意度。结果:通过对比分析,发现学生在知识保留和知识获取方面存在显著差异。LBL组的短期停留时间(平均7.94,SD 1.51)略高于CBL组(平均7.30,SD 1.60),但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.076)。相反,CBL组的长期滞留率(平均6.95,SD 1.87)略高于LBL组(平均6.22,SD 1.88),但差异也不显著(P = 0.095)。在组内分析中,结果显示LBL中知识型问题的长期记忆显著下降,而CBL随着时间的推移保持了记忆(P结论:CBL增强了长期记忆和知识获取,支持其融入药理学教育。进一步的研究应探讨其在医学课程中的广泛应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Case-Based and Lecture-Based Learning Methods in Pharmacology Teaching: Assessing Learning Outcomes, Memory Retention, and Student Satisfaction at the College of Medicine, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Background: Teaching pharmacology is challenging due to its complex content and extensive terminology. Traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) limits engagement and retention, while case-based learning (CBL) uses real-world scenarios to improve critical thinking. Although prior research has explored CBL's impact in pharmacology education, few studies directly compare CBL and LBL in terms of memory retention and student satisfaction over a prolonged period. This study addresses this gap by comparing both methods over 4 weeks.

Methods: Two educational sessions, unrelated to the curriculum or block assessments, were conducted with third- and fourth-year preclinical medical students, where basic pharmacology is delivered. Students were randomly assigned to either LBL or CBL for each session. Short-term retention was assessed immediately after the sessions, while long-term retention was evaluated 4 weeks later using multiple-choice questions designed to measure recall and cognitive understanding. Additionally, a general electronic survey was conducted to evaluate student satisfaction.

Results: Comparative analysis revealed notable patterns in retention and knowledge acquisition. Short-term retention was slightly higher in the LBL group (mean 7.94, SD 1.51) than in the CBL group (mean 7.30, SD 1.60), though the difference was not statistically significant (P = .076). Conversely, long-term retention was slightly higher in the CBL group (mean 6.95, SD 1.87) than in the LBL group (mean 6.22, SD 1.88), but this difference was also not significant (P = .095). Within-group analysis, the results showed a significant decline in long-term retention for knowledge-based questions in LBL, while CBL maintained retention over time (P < .001). No significant differences in cognition or satisfaction were observed.

Conclusions: CBL enhances long-term retention and knowledge acquisition, supporting its integration into pharmacology education. Further research should explore its broader application in medical curricula.

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
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信