Jiwane Rekha, Gajbhiye Vivekanand, Hulke Sandip, Singh Ruchi, Shrivastava Ragini, Malhotra Varun
Department of Physiology, AIIMS, Bhopal, India.
Department of Anatomy, RKDF Medical Collage, Bhopal, India.
Bioinformation. 2024 May 31;20(5):587-591. doi: 10.6026/973206300200587. eCollection 2024.
Reflective writing develops meta-cognition among students. Therefore, it is of interest to compare effectiveness of post lecture reflective writing to didactic lecture between individual and group reflective writing. Hence, we included 124 first-year students from AIIMS Bhopal, India and divided them in two groups of 62 students. Both groups took a pre-test using a reflection questionnaire. Students were taught reflective writing. Both groups attended physiology lectures on two different topics. First lecture on body fluids where Group A wrote reflections individually and Group B did so in sub-groups (B1 to B6). After another lecture on Pathophysiology of oedema, Group A wrote reflections in groups and Group B wrote individually (A1 to A6). Both groups took a test in the form of MCQ about reflective writing on lectures. After intervention both groups took a post-test using a reflection questionnaire. Mean and standard deviation of Pre-test is 3.86 ± 0.86 and Post-test is 7.58 ± 1.01, respectively. The Mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.05 ± 4.41 and in group is 27.45 ± 3.93, respectively with p-value < 0.05. Evaluation of students who wrote reflection in groups after second lecture the mean and standard deviation of reflection who wrote individually is 38.22 ± 4.64 and in group is 27.03 ± 2.87 respectively with p-value < 0.05. The performance of students who wrote reflection in groups is not satisfactory as compared to students who wrote their reflection individually.
反思性写作能培养学生的元认知能力。因此，比较课后反思性写作与传统讲授法在个人反思性写作和小组反思性写作中的效果很有意义。于是，我们纳入了来自印度博帕尔全印医学科学研究所的124名一年级学生，并将他们分为两组，每组62名学生。两组学生都使用一份反思问卷进行了预测试。学生们学习了反思性写作。两组学生都参加了关于两个不同主题的生理学讲座。第一场关于体液的讲座中，A组学生进行个人反思写作，B组学生以小组形式（B1至B6）进行反思写作。在另一场关于水肿病理生理学的讲座后，A组学生进行小组反思写作，B组学生进行个人反思写作（A1至A6）。两组学生都参加了关于讲座反思性写作的多项选择题测试。干预后，两组学生都使用反思问卷进行了后测试。预测试的均值和标准差分别为3.86±0.86，后测试的均值和标准差分别为7.58±1.01。个人反思写作的均值和标准差分别为38.05±4.41，小组反思写作的均值和标准差分别为27.45±3.93，p值<0.05。在第二场讲座后对小组反思写作的学生进行评估，个人反思写作的均值和标准差分别为38.22±4.64，小组反思写作的均值和标准差分别为27.03±2.87，p值<0.05。与个人反思写作的学生相比，小组反思写作的学生表现并不令人满意。
