Vakani Farhan, Jafri Wasim, Ahmad Amina, Sonawalla Aziz, Sheerani Mughis
Department of Continuing Professional Education, The Aga Khan University, Karachi.
Department of Medical Education, College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, Karachi.
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2014 Jan;24(1):23-6.
To determine whether general practitioners learned better with task-based learning or problem-oriented lecture in a Continuing Medical Education (CME) set-up.
Quasi-experimental study.
The Aga Khan University, Karachi campus, from April to June 2012.
Fifty-nine physicians were given a choice to opt for either Task-based Learning (TBL) or Problem Oriented Lecture (PBL) in a continuing medical education set-up about headaches. The TBL group had 30 participants divided into 10 small groups, and were assigned case-based tasks. The lecture group had 29 participants. Both groups were given a pre and a post-test. Pre/post assessment was done using one-best MCQs. The reliability coefficient of scores for both the groups was estimated through Cronbach's alpha. An item analysis for difficulty and discriminatory indices was calculated for both the groups. Paired t-test was used to determine the difference between pre- and post-test scores of both groups. Independent t-test was used to compare the impact of the two teaching methods in terms of learning through scores produced by MCQ test.
Cronbach's alpha was 0.672 for the lecture group and 0.881 for TBL group. Item analysis for difficulty (p) and discriminatory indexes (d) was obtained for both groups. The results for the lecture group showed pre-test (p) = 42% vs. post-test (p) = 43%; pre- test (d) = 0.60 vs. post-test (d) = 0.40. The TBL group showed pre -test (p) = 48% vs. post-test (p) = 70%; pre-test (d) = 0.69 vs. post-test (d) = 0.73. Lecture group pre-/post-test mean scores were (8.52 ± 2.95 vs. 12.41 ± 2.65; p < 0.001), where TBL group showed (9.70 ± 3.65 vs. 14 ± 3.99; p < 0.001). Independent t-test exhibited an insignificant difference at baseline (lecture 8.52 ± 2.95 vs. TBL 9.70 ± 3.65; p = 0.177). The post-scores were not statistically different lecture 12.41 ± 2.65 vs. TBL 14 ± 3.99; p = 0.07).
Both delivery methods were found to be equally effective, showing statistically insignificant differences. However, TBL groups' post-test higher mean scores and radical increase in the post-test difficulty index demonstrated improved learning through TBL delivery and calls for further exploration of longitudinal studies in the context of CME.
确定在继续医学教育（CME）环境中，全科医生通过基于任务的学习还是以问题为导向的讲座学习效果更好。
准实验研究。
2012年4月至6月，卡拉奇校区的阿迦汗大学。
59名医生在关于头痛的继续医学教育中可选择基于任务的学习（TBL）或以问题为导向的讲座（PBL）。TBL组有30名参与者，分为10个小组，并分配基于案例的任务。讲座组有29名参与者。两组均进行了前测和后测。前测/后测评估使用单项最佳选择题。通过克朗巴赫α系数估计两组分数的可靠性系数。计算两组难度和区分指数的项目分析。配对t检验用于确定两组前测和后测分数之间的差异。独立t检验用于通过多项选择题测试产生的分数比较两种教学方法的学习效果。
讲座组的克朗巴赫α系数为0.672，TBL组为0.881。两组均获得了难度（p）和区分指数（d）的项目分析结果。讲座组的结果显示，前测（p）=42%，后测（p）=43%；前测（d）=0.60，后测（d）=0.40。TBL组显示，前测（p）=48%，后测（p）=70%；前测（d）=0.69，后测（d）=0.73。讲座组前测/后测平均分数分别为（8.52±2.95对12.41±2.65；p<0.001），TBL组为（9.70±3.65对14±3.99；p<0.001）。独立t检验显示基线时无显著差异（讲座组8.52±2.95对TBL组9.70±3.65；p=0.177）。后测分数无统计学差异（讲座组12.41±2.65对TBL组14±3.99；p=0.07）。
两种教学方法均被发现同样有效，统计学上无显著差异。然而，TBL组后测平均分数更高，后测难度指数大幅增加，表明通过TBL教学法学习效果更好，需要在继续医学教育背景下进一步开展纵向研究。
