Tshitenge Stephane Tshitenge, Ndhlovu Chiratidzo Ellen, Ogundipe Radiance
Family Physician, Faculty of Medicine, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health Care, Botswana.
University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Pan Afr Med J. 2017 May 5;27:13. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2017.27.13.10623. eCollection 2017.
Problem-based Learning (PBL) curricula, like all curricula, require systematic evaluation as there is a risk of implementing a dysfunctional PBL curriculum. The study intended to evaluate the PBL curriculum delivery from the perspective of the clerkship students at the University of Botswana-Faculty of Medicine.
A cross-sectional study was conducted among clerkship students in Family Medicine, Paediatrics, Internal Medicine and Surgery. During a 4-week period, each respondent completed weekly a questionnaire based survey tool. The three part questionnaire consisted of demographic data, 'seven-jumps' adapted from a 'typical' PBL tool to evaluate PBL process and 11 items 'adopted 'from the Short-Questionnaire-to-Evaluate-the-Effectiveness-of-Tutors in the PBL tool to evaluate the PBL facilitation with open ended questions at the end.
Of the 81 eligible participants, 89% (n=72) responded. We collected back 141 (49%) forms out of the 288 expected (72 X 4 weeks). PBL first sessions took place all the time only in Family Medicine and in about 75% of the time in Pediatrics but none were conducted in the other disciplines. Overall, they evaluated the PBL process as 'good' (median= 8 /10) and the PBL facilitation as 'very good' (median=9 /10). Students appeared to have differing opinions on the preferred approach to the nature of patient problems that the PBL sessions should be structured around.
Despite students rating PBL process as 'good' and facilitation as 'very good', PBL first sessions were not consistently undertaken.
与所有课程一样,基于问题的学习(PBL)课程需要进行系统评估,因为存在实施功能失调的PBL课程的风险。本研究旨在从博茨瓦纳大学医学院实习学生的角度评估PBL课程的实施情况。
对家庭医学、儿科学、内科学和外科学的实习学生进行了一项横断面研究。在为期4周的时间里,每位受访者每周完成一份基于问卷的调查工具。这份三部分的问卷包括人口统计学数据、从“典型”PBL工具改编而来的用于评估PBL过程的“七步跳”,以及从PBL工具中用于评估导师有效性的简短问卷中“采用”的11个项目,最后还有开放式问题用于评估PBL引导。
在81名符合条件的参与者中,89%(n = 72)做出了回应。在预期的288份表格(72×4周)中,我们收回了141份(49%)。PBL的首次课程仅在家庭医学中一直开展,在儿科学中约75%的时间开展,但在其他学科中均未进行。总体而言,他们将PBL过程评为“良好”(中位数 = 8/10),将PBL引导评为“非常好”(中位数 = 9/10)。学生们对于PBL课程应围绕的患者问题性质的首选方法似乎有不同意见。
尽管学生将PBL过程评为“良好”,将引导评为“非常好”,但PBL的首次课程并未始终如一地开展。