Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Apr 9:9:227-233.
doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S158784. eCollection 2018.

Matching medical student achievement to learning objectives and outcomes: a paradigm shift for an implemented teaching module

Ihab Shafek Atta  1 , Fahd Nasser AlQahtani  2
Affiliations

Matching medical student achievement to learning objectives and outcomes: a paradigm shift for an implemented teaching module

Ihab Shafek Atta et al. Adv Med Educ Pract. .

Abstract

Introduction: Low student achievement in a basic imaging module was the impetus for an assessment of the module.

Methods: A valid, reliable, and structured Likert scale was designed to measure the degree of student satisfaction with the domains of the module, including learning objectives (LO), teaching strategy and tools (TT), assessment tools (AT), and allotted credit hours (CH). Further analysis was conducted of student dissatisfaction to determine the subdomain in which module improvement was to be implemented. Statistical analysis of data among Likert scale domains was conducted.

Results: Likert scale data showed the TT domain to be the major reason for low student achievement. Statistical studies revealed 57/117 students (48.6%) were dissatisfied with TT, compared with LO 16/117 (13.6%), AT 54/117 (46.1%), and CH 12/117 (10.2%). Significant P-values were obtained for LO vs TT (P<0.0001), LO vs AT (P<0.0001), LO vs CH (P<0.03), TT vs CH (P<0.0001), and AT vs CH (P<0.0001). No significant difference was observed between TT and AT (P<0.29). Regarding TT, 41/117 (34.9%) students were dissatisfied with lectures (L) compared to hospital-based teaching (HPT) 24/117 (20%), problem-based learning (PBL) 8/117 (6.8%), self-directed learning (SDL) 3/117 (2.5%), and seminars (S) 4/117 (3.4%). Significant P-values were obtained for L vs HPT (P<0.0001), L vs PBL (P<0.0001), L vs SDL (P<0.0001), L vs S (P<0.0001), HPT vs PBL (P<0.002), HPT vs SDL (P<0.0001), and HPT vs S (P<0.0001). Regarding lecture modifications, student satisfaction was 78.3% compared to 52% before modification. A significant P-value (P<0.0001) was obtained between Likert scale domains before and after modification. Lecture modification resulted in a good student response and satisfaction.

Conclusion: The major reason for low student achievement was the teaching tools, particularly the lectures. Major modifications to lectures improved student achievement. The students and most of the teaching staff were highly satisfied with the modifications, which provided for reciprocal discussion and interaction. These results should encourage and guide other medical schools to investigate the points of weakness in their curriculum.

Keywords: curriculum evaluation; curriculum reform; interactive lecture; learning objectives; radiology lecture; radiology teaching; student performance; teaching strategy; teaching tools.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Students’ achievement in the basic imaging module in relationship to other modules at the same phase and level. Note: A–D and F represent grades.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Students’ satisfaction in the teaching tool subdomains. Abbreviations: HPT, hospital-based training; PBL, problem-based learning; SDL, self-directed learning.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Au W. Teaching under the new Taylorism: high-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2011;43:25–45.
    1. Wang KH, Wang TH, Wang WL, Huang SC. Learning styles and formative assessment strategy: enhancing student achievement in Web-based learning. J Comput Assist Learn. 2006;22:207–217.
    1. Banta TW, Suskie L, Walvoord BE. Three assessment tenors look back and to the future. Assess Update. 2015;27(1):3–15.
    1. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T. Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ. 2004;328:1312–1315. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boynton PM. Administering, analysing, and reporting your questionnaire. BMJ. 2004;328(7452):1372–1375. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources