使用母语与非母语对医学生PBL辅导课参与水平的影响

Q1 Nursing
Maha A. Al Turki , Mohamud S. Mohamud , Emad Masuadi , Mohammed A. Altowejri , Abdullah Farraj , Henk G. Schmidt
{"title":"使用母语与非母语对医学生PBL辅导课参与水平的影响","authors":"Maha A. Al Turki ,&nbsp;Mohamud S. Mohamud ,&nbsp;Emad Masuadi ,&nbsp;Mohammed A. Altowejri ,&nbsp;Abdullah Farraj ,&nbsp;Henk G. Schmidt","doi":"10.1016/j.hpe.2020.11.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Language competency has been perceived to be a significant barrier to both learning and interaction in university. However, most studies in this field confine themselves to perceptions of students. This study focused on actual behaviors in small group discussions. It explored whether linguistic differences affect the level of participation between students who conduct discussions in their native Arabic language and those who participate in a second language, being English.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>An experimental study conducted at a Saudi medical school. First-year medical students were assigned randomly to attend two small-group discussions either in Arabic or in English. All sessions were video-recorded for data transcription and analysis. The students' utterances were broken down into propositions and subsequently categorized as either explanatory or descriptive. The number of propositions for each student was counted for each group. Analysis of variance was conducted to test for differences. To examine students’ perception toward conducting small-group discussions either in English or Arabic, students were invited to anonymously fill a questionnaire distributed at the end of the sessions.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Students who were assigned to sessions conducted in their native language produced significant more descriptive (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.005) and explanatory propositions (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.008). Discussions conducted in their native language were almost 60% more extensive than those conducted in English. Although not significant, students reported that conducting the PBL tutorial session in the Arabic language made them more motivated and gave them more confidence in expressing their thoughts. However, when PBL is conducted in English, students indicated that their understanding of basic sciences is better (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). In addition, they assume that they acquire a deeper knowledge.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Students’ who use their native language in small-group discussions contribute more than those discuss matters using a foreign language. However, more students perceived that using the English language helps them better in understanding basic sciences and ensuring deeper knowledge.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93562,"journal":{"name":"Health professions education","volume":"6 4","pages":"Pages 447-453"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hpe.2020.11.001","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of Using Native versus Nonnative Language on the Participation Level of Medical Students during PBL Tutorials\",\"authors\":\"Maha A. Al Turki ,&nbsp;Mohamud S. Mohamud ,&nbsp;Emad Masuadi ,&nbsp;Mohammed A. Altowejri ,&nbsp;Abdullah Farraj ,&nbsp;Henk G. Schmidt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hpe.2020.11.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Language competency has been perceived to be a significant barrier to both learning and interaction in university. However, most studies in this field confine themselves to perceptions of students. This study focused on actual behaviors in small group discussions. It explored whether linguistic differences affect the level of participation between students who conduct discussions in their native Arabic language and those who participate in a second language, being English.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>An experimental study conducted at a Saudi medical school. First-year medical students were assigned randomly to attend two small-group discussions either in Arabic or in English. All sessions were video-recorded for data transcription and analysis. The students' utterances were broken down into propositions and subsequently categorized as either explanatory or descriptive. The number of propositions for each student was counted for each group. Analysis of variance was conducted to test for differences. To examine students’ perception toward conducting small-group discussions either in English or Arabic, students were invited to anonymously fill a questionnaire distributed at the end of the sessions.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Students who were assigned to sessions conducted in their native language produced significant more descriptive (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.005) and explanatory propositions (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.008). Discussions conducted in their native language were almost 60% more extensive than those conducted in English. Although not significant, students reported that conducting the PBL tutorial session in the Arabic language made them more motivated and gave them more confidence in expressing their thoughts. However, when PBL is conducted in English, students indicated that their understanding of basic sciences is better (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). In addition, they assume that they acquire a deeper knowledge.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Students’ who use their native language in small-group discussions contribute more than those discuss matters using a foreign language. However, more students perceived that using the English language helps them better in understanding basic sciences and ensuring deeper knowledge.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health professions education\",\"volume\":\"6 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 447-453\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.hpe.2020.11.001\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health professions education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452301120300900\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health professions education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452301120300900","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在大学里,语言能力一直被认为是学习和互动的一个重要障碍。然而,这一领域的大多数研究都局限于对学生的看法。这项研究关注的是小组讨论中的实际行为。它探讨了语言差异是否会影响用母语阿拉伯语和用第二语言英语进行讨论的学生之间的参与水平。方法一项在沙特医学院进行的实验研究。一年级医学生被随机分配参加两个用阿拉伯语或英语进行的小组讨论。所有会议均录像,以供数据转录和分析。学生们的话语被分解成命题,随后被分类为解释性或描述性。每组计算每个学生的命题数。进行方差分析以检验差异。为了检验学生对用英语或阿拉伯语进行小组讨论的看法,学生们被邀请匿名填写一份在课程结束时分发的调查问卷。结果被分配到以母语进行的课程的学生产生了显著更多的描述性(p <0.005)和解释性命题(p <0.008)。用母语进行的讨论比用英语进行的讨论要广泛60%。虽然不显著,但学生报告说,用阿拉伯语进行PBL辅导课程使他们更有动力,并使他们更有信心表达自己的想法。然而,当用英语进行PBL时,学生表示他们对基础科学的理解更好(p <0.001)。此外,他们认为他们获得了更深的知识。结论在小组讨论中使用母语的学生比使用外语的学生贡献更大。然而,更多的学生认为使用英语有助于他们更好地理解基础科学,并确保更深层次的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effect of Using Native versus Nonnative Language on the Participation Level of Medical Students during PBL Tutorials

Purpose

Language competency has been perceived to be a significant barrier to both learning and interaction in university. However, most studies in this field confine themselves to perceptions of students. This study focused on actual behaviors in small group discussions. It explored whether linguistic differences affect the level of participation between students who conduct discussions in their native Arabic language and those who participate in a second language, being English.

Method

An experimental study conducted at a Saudi medical school. First-year medical students were assigned randomly to attend two small-group discussions either in Arabic or in English. All sessions were video-recorded for data transcription and analysis. The students' utterances were broken down into propositions and subsequently categorized as either explanatory or descriptive. The number of propositions for each student was counted for each group. Analysis of variance was conducted to test for differences. To examine students’ perception toward conducting small-group discussions either in English or Arabic, students were invited to anonymously fill a questionnaire distributed at the end of the sessions.

Results

Students who were assigned to sessions conducted in their native language produced significant more descriptive (p < 0.005) and explanatory propositions (p < 0.008). Discussions conducted in their native language were almost 60% more extensive than those conducted in English. Although not significant, students reported that conducting the PBL tutorial session in the Arabic language made them more motivated and gave them more confidence in expressing their thoughts. However, when PBL is conducted in English, students indicated that their understanding of basic sciences is better (p < 0.001). In addition, they assume that they acquire a deeper knowledge.

Conclusion

Students’ who use their native language in small-group discussions contribute more than those discuss matters using a foreign language. However, more students perceived that using the English language helps them better in understanding basic sciences and ensuring deeper knowledge.

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
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
38 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信