KOSIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Kosin Med J > Volume 30(2); 2015 > Article
-
Original Article
Students' Satisfaction and Perception of Problem Based Learning Evaluated by Questionnaire - Min Jeong Kim
-
Kosin Medical Journal 2015;30(2):149-157.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.2015.30.2.149
Published online: January 20, 2015
Department of Neurology, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Busan, Korea
- Corresponding Author: Min-Jeong Kim, MD, PhD, Department of neurology, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, 262 Gamcheon-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 49267, Korea Tel:+82-51-990-6461, Fax:+82-51-990-3077 E-mail: merritt329@hanmail.net
• Received: November 4, 2015 • Accepted: November 30, 2015
Copyright © 2015 Kosin University School of Medicine Proceedings
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 4,069 Views
- 53 Download
- 2 Crossref
Abstract
-
Objectives
- The aim of this study is to analyze the student's satisfaction and perception in problem based learning of Kosin University College of Medicine, and to propose effective strategies for improvement of problem based learning.
-
Methods
- Students satisfaction of problem based learning was assessed using the structured questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 33 items covered satisfaction of self-evaluation and small group activity, learning resources and environment, tutor and content and construction of modules.
-
Result
- A total of 80 students were surveyed. Students recognized PBL as more effective and interesting learning method than traditional lectures. Most of students highly satisfied with self-directed learning of their own and small group, tutor, composition and contents of modules. Students had difficult process to build a logical clinical reasoning by combining clues in the PBL process. Students regard that they can easily connect knowledge in real-clinical situations with the greatest advantages of PBL. Students cited as the biggest disadvantage is that students may not receive a fair evaluation.
-
Conclusion
- Through the results of this survey it showed that students are satisfied with the PBL classes and recognized as effective compared to traditional instructor-led classes. However, further efforts in improving evaluation system and learning environments was necessary for the success of the PBL curriculum.
Table 1.Overall satisfaction of problem based learning by students
| Med 1 (n=35) | Med 2 (n=45) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| I regard it appropriate the process of PBL lessons (three times meeting/ module) | 4.66(±0.54)∗ | 4.24(±1.13) | 0.05 |
| I regard the goal of PBL achieved. | 4.57(±0.59) | 4.53(±0.69) | 0.79 |
| I regard PBL as an effective method of learning than traditional lecture. | 4.54(±0.66) | 4.60(±0.81) | 0.73 |
| I regard it is better to extend the PBL class. | 4.60(±0.74) | 4.58(±0.72) | 0.89 |
| I am more motivated to learn. | 4.63(±0.55) | 4.62(±0.61) | 0.96 |
| As only limited data being added to the class and receives the response data from the tutor to request, the problems in the tutorial process are more interest and seems to real clinic. | 4.49(±0.74) | 4.44(0.92) | 0.83 |
| Every meeting was conducted a self-assessment, the ability to evaluate myself through which improved. | 4.54(±0.70) | 4.22(±0.88) | 0.73 |
| I am satisfied with the assessment methods (quizzes, attendance, course evaluation discussion.) | 4.57(±0.56) | 4.44(±0.94) | 0.45 |
Table 2.Satisfaction with self motivated learning and small group activity
Table 3.The satisfaction with tutor and composition of modules
| Med 1 (n=35) | Med 2 (n=45) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tutor had close contact with the students to discuss the progress in the free atmosphere. | 4.69(±0.68)∗ | 4.73(±0.78) | 0.77 |
| Tutor had a sufficient knowledge on the subject. | 4.66(±0.64 | 4.76(±0.61) | 0.49 |
| Tutor facilitated the discussion by questions related to the topic. | 4.74(±0.51) | 4.7(±0.58) | 0.94 |
| Tutor was handed the data when the student's request. | 4.89(±0.32) | 4.80(±0.55) | 0.39 |
| Tutor had affection toward students and guided students to participate in discussion more evenly. | 4.66(±0.59) | 4.71(±0.73) | 0.72 |
| The contents and composition of modules were suitable to students level. | 4.54(±0.66) | 4.49(±0.59) | 0.70 |
| Lab and actual data which provided were useful to problem solving. | 4.77(±0.43) | 4.64(0.53) | 0.24 |
| I was able to learn how to access the clinical problem through the module. | 4.69(±0.47) | 4.73(±0.54) | 0.68 |
| I was able to learn how to build a hypothesis (clinical reasoning) about the clinical problem. | 4.69(±0.47) | 4.62(±0.58) | 0.59 |
| I had to learn to properly connect the knowledge of basic medicine and clinical medicine. | 4.66(±0.48) | 4.53(±0.66) | 0.34 |
Table 4.Students perceptions as difficult process for performing problem-solving
| Med 1 (n=35) | Med 2 (n=45) | |
|---|---|---|
| The process of recognize the clues of the problem (core recognition, problem listing) | 5(14.3%)∗ | 3(6.7%) |
| The process to build a clinical reasoning logicaly by combining clues | 16(45.7%) | 28(62.2%) |
| The process of setting up learning tasks (learning goal) | 2(5.7%) | 2(4.4%) |
| The process of establishing a hypothesis (hypothesis generation) | 9(25.7%) | 9(20%) |
| Self directed learning | 1(2.8%) | 3(6.7%) |
Table 5.The advantage and disadvantage of problem based learning
| Med 1 (n=35) | Med 2 (n=45) | |
|---|---|---|
| Disadvantage | ||
| Because the final learning goal was vague, it gives rise to confusion to discussion. | 3(8.57%)∗ | 8(7.78%) |
| This class is slanted in favor of some active students. | 10(28.57%) | 10(22.22%) |
| There are likely to be evaluated students unfairly. | 9(24.71%) | 16(35.55%) |
| There is insufficient necessary learning resources. | 7(20%) | 4(8.88%) |
| The topic is quite broad and the time to study systematically is insufficient. Advantage | 4(11.42%) | 7(15.55%) |
| These lessons are well motivated. | 16(45.7%) | 21(46.6%) |
| I can learn new topics quickly. | 8(22.85%) | 7(15.5%) |
| I learned the way connect medical knowledge with real-life situations | 14(40%) | 24(53.33%) |
| Acquired memory maintain longer than I learned in lecture-based learning. | 16(45.71%) | 10(22.2%) |
| Logical thinking and judgment are trained. | 18(51.42%) | 8(17.77%)) |
| The capability of discussion and utterance are improved. | 9(25.71%) | 4(8.88%) |
- 2. Kim JB. Practical issues and searching for solutions in Problem-Based Learning as a constructive learning model. The Korean journal of educational psychology 2004;18:59–74.
- 3. Lim KY. Implementation of problem-based learning to established medical schools with insufficient resources. Korean J Med Educ 1998;10:21–8.Article
- 4. Kim YJ, Kang PS, Lee CK, Park JH. The Principle and Practice of PBL. Korean J Med Educ 2000;12:1–14.Article
- 5. Chae SJ, Lee DS, Lee YS. Causal analysis and improvement stratagies of the problems in implementing a PBL program in intergrated curriculum. Korean J Med Educ 2003;15:35–43.Article
- 6. Chan BH, Kee YC, Kim BW, Kang DS, Kwak YS, Kang E, et al. The implementation of problem based learning in Kyungpook national university school of medicine and its evaluation. Korean J Med Educ 2001;13:91–105.Article
- 7. Hur Y, Kim S. Teaching and learning strategies of PBL. Korean J Med Educ 2002;14:145–56.Article
- 8. Wiggins G. Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1998.
- 9. Kim S, Lee MS. A study on the improvement of evaluation method in problem based learning. Korean J Med Educ 1997;9:73–85.Article
- 10. Shin MH. A study of the development and application of rubrics for performance assessment in terms of promoting program learning outcomes. Journal of Engineering Education Research 2012;15:108–18.
- 11. Kim JH, Kim JY, Son HJ, Choi YH, Hong KP, Ahn BH, et al. A qualitative evaluation of problem based learning curriculum by students'perceptions. Korean J Med Educ 2004;16:179–93.Article
References
Figure & Data
References
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
- Medical Students’ Perspective on Assessment Mechanism During Problem-Based Learning at Debre Tabor University: An Explanatory Mixed Study
Zelalem Animaw, Tsedeke Asaminew
Advances in Medical Education and Practice.2023; Volume 14: 859. CrossRef - Problem based learning approach increases the academic satisfaction of health science students in Ethiopian universities: a comparative cross sectional study
Selamawit Girma Tadesse, Dereje Girma Tadesse, Eyaya Habtie Dagnaw
BMC Medical Education.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
PubReader
ePub Link
Cite
XML DownloadStudents' Satisfaction and Perception of Problem Based Learning Evaluated by Questionnaire
Students' Satisfaction and Perception of Problem Based Learning Evaluated by Questionnaire
Overall satisfaction of problem based learning by students
| Med 1 (n=35) | Med 2 (n=45) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| I regard it appropriate the process of PBL lessons (three times meeting/ module) | 4.66(±0.54) |
4.24(±1.13) | 0.05 |
| I regard the goal of PBL achieved. | 4.57(±0.59) | 4.53(±0.69) | 0.79 |
| I regard PBL as an effective method of learning than traditional lecture. | 4.54(±0.66) | 4.60(±0.81) | 0.73 |
| I regard it is better to extend the PBL class. | 4.60(±0.74) | 4.58(±0.72) | 0.89 |
| I am more motivated to learn. | 4.63(±0.55) | 4.62(±0.61) | 0.96 |
| As only limited data being added to the class and receives the response data from the tutor to request, the problems in the tutorial process are more interest and seems to real clinic. | 4.49(±0.74) | 4.44(0.92) | 0.83 |
| Every meeting was conducted a self-assessment, the ability to evaluate myself through which improved. | 4.54(±0.70) | 4.22(±0.88) | 0.73 |
| I am satisfied with the assessment methods (quizzes, attendance, course evaluation discussion.) | 4.57(±0.56) | 4.44(±0.94) | 0.45 |
Satisfaction with self motivated learning and small group activity
| Med 1 (n=35) | Med 2 (n=45) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| I participated actively, including presentations and discussions in class. | 4.63(±0.49) | 4.56(0.76) | 0.60 |
| I was ready to challenge the self-directed learning using appropriate learning resources. | 4.57(±0.61) | 4.76(0.53) | 0.16 |
| Students engaged in cooperative learning for problem solving | 4.57(±0.56) | 4.69(±0.59) | 0.37 |
| The presentation of other students was conducive to learning. | 4.74(±0.44) | 4.73(±0.54) | 0.93 |
| Students dealt with the adequate learning task. | 4.63(±0.65) | 4.60(0.62) | 0.84 |
| Students led the class initiatively as writer and modulator. | 4.63(±0.55) | 4.93(0.25 | <0.05 |
| Students decided learning goal on their own. | 4.49(±0.74) | 4.82(±0.44) | 0.14 |
The satisfaction with tutor and composition of modules
| Med 1 (n=35) | Med 2 (n=45) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tutor had close contact with the students to discuss the progress in the free atmosphere. | 4.69(±0.68) |
4.73(±0.78) | 0.77 |
| Tutor had a sufficient knowledge on the subject. | 4.66(±0.64 | 4.76(±0.61) | 0.49 |
| Tutor facilitated the discussion by questions related to the topic. | 4.74(±0.51) | 4.7(±0.58) | 0.94 |
| Tutor was handed the data when the student's request. | 4.89(±0.32) | 4.80(±0.55) | 0.39 |
| Tutor had affection toward students and guided students to participate in discussion more evenly. | 4.66(±0.59) | 4.71(±0.73) | 0.72 |
| The contents and composition of modules were suitable to students level. | 4.54(±0.66) | 4.49(±0.59) | 0.70 |
| Lab and actual data which provided were useful to problem solving. | 4.77(±0.43) | 4.64(0.53) | 0.24 |
| I was able to learn how to access the clinical problem through the module. | 4.69(±0.47) | 4.73(±0.54) | 0.68 |
| I was able to learn how to build a hypothesis (clinical reasoning) about the clinical problem. | 4.69(±0.47) | 4.62(±0.58) | 0.59 |
| I had to learn to properly connect the knowledge of basic medicine and clinical medicine. | 4.66(±0.48) | 4.53(±0.66) | 0.34 |
Students perceptions as difficult process for performing problem-solving
| Med 1 (n=35) | Med 2 (n=45) | |
|---|---|---|
| The process of recognize the clues of the problem (core recognition, problem listing) | 5(14.3%) |
3(6.7%) |
| The process to build a clinical reasoning logicaly by combining clues | 16(45.7%) | 28(62.2%) |
| The process of setting up learning tasks (learning goal) | 2(5.7%) | 2(4.4%) |
| The process of establishing a hypothesis (hypothesis generation) | 9(25.7%) | 9(20%) |
| Self directed learning | 1(2.8%) | 3(6.7%) |
The advantage and disadvantage of problem based learning
| Med 1 (n=35) | Med 2 (n=45) | |
|---|---|---|
| Disadvantage | ||
| Because the final learning goal was vague, it gives rise to confusion to discussion. | 3(8.57%) |
8(7.78%) |
| This class is slanted in favor of some active students. | 10(28.57%) | 10(22.22%) |
| There are likely to be evaluated students unfairly. | 9(24.71%) | 16(35.55%) |
| There is insufficient necessary learning resources. | 7(20%) | 4(8.88%) |
| The topic is quite broad and the time to study systematically is insufficient. Advantage | 4(11.42%) | 7(15.55%) |
| These lessons are well motivated. | 16(45.7%) | 21(46.6%) |
| I can learn new topics quickly. | 8(22.85%) | 7(15.5%) |
| I learned the way connect medical knowledge with real-life situations | 14(40%) | 24(53.33%) |
| Acquired memory maintain longer than I learned in lecture-based learning. | 16(45.71%) | 10(22.2%) |
| Logical thinking and judgment are trained. | 18(51.42%) | 8(17.77%)) |
| The capability of discussion and utterance are improved. | 9(25.71%) | 4(8.88%) |
