-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
Other Comments:
In overall, the paper is nicely written and easy to read with a good flow.
However, certain aspects of the paper can be described in greater detail.
Major comments:
1. In the paper, the authors mentioned the use of a teaching and learning quality improvement (QI) model. However, a detailed description and specification of the QI model is lacking:
- What is the main feature of the QI model? The integration of teaching sessions with PBL discussion sessions? Or the pre and post test?
- How is this QI model different from other PBL approaches
2. The authors also mentioned the use of a pre and surprise post tests to evaluate the students' understanding of the concepts involved, and compared their scores in both tests. Since the surprise post tests were conducted after three PBL sessions, would the surprise test be predictable and expected by the students eventually and therefore lose its meaning and purpose (since the students can prepare for it)?
More importantly, there will usually be an increase in scores when comparing the students' understanding before and after any teaching session, regardless of whether a PBL approach is used. Is there any control group to compare the pre and post test scores for MLT students who are not exposed to the PBL approach and those who are exposed to the PBL approach? If a null group is used, ie. students who are not subjected to any additional PBL process, then, we have to be careful to ensure that the improvement is not just due to the extra time students formally spent in going through the material, which can be replicated with other processes including interactive lectures, team-based learning, etc. So a carefully selected control is essential if we want to prove the case with PBL.
3. Discussion: In paragraph 3, the authors described the advantages of PBL in the MLT course, but did not specifically mention the advantages of the QI model which they have developed. Again, how is the QI model advantageous as compared to other PBL approaches?
Minor comments:
1. Abstract: The introduction paragraph gave an overview of the problem of training laboratory technicians and an overview of PBL. However, the link between training laboratory technicians and PBL is not described clearly - i.e. How does PBL help in solving the problem of training laboratory technicians?
2. Introduction: In paragraph 4, the authors mentioned that no suitable PBL model was found for MLT students. Why is this so? Please describe the reason(s). The authors also mentioned that they developed "a simple model where introductory teaching sessions are followed by PBL discussion sessions". Is this the main feature of the describe QI model? In fact, this model is not novel and has been reported in literature. Please add in the appropriate references.
3a. Methods: In the section "Study Unit Design", the authors mentioned that the small group PBL discussions are on the pre-test questions. However, later in that paragraph, it was stated that "students met once a week for 2 to 2.5 hours per session and worked through health care scenarios that were designed to address study unit objectives". The reviewer would like to know what is the focus of the small group PBL discussions? Is the focus on pre-test questions or health care scenarios or both?
3b. Methods: In the section "Interviewing the students", the word "interview" may not be appropriate since the feedback was evaluated through questionnaires and no actual, direct interview was conducted.
4. Results: In section (i) "Effect of small group PBL discussion...", the authors presented the overall difference between the mean pre-test and post-test scores. Analysing only the overall scores averaged over three PBL sessions may not be adequate since the data may be biased (e.g. the difference in scores in session 1 may be very high but there may be a small insignificant difference in scores in session 2, due to the difference in difficulty levels of the concepts). Therefore, it would be good if the authors can present the difference in scores for each PBL session in the results.
5. It would be good if the authors can provide an example of the pre-test and post-test questions in the Appendix. -
Competing interests:
No
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
Yes -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
Lim, S.J., Khan, A.M., de Silva, M., Lim, K.S., Hu, Y., Tan, C.H. & Tan, T.W. (2009). The implementation of e-learning tools to enhance undergraduate bioinformatics teaching and learning: A case study in the National University of Singapore. BMC Bioinformatics, 10(15), S12. -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Developing e-learning tools to enhance teaching and learning in undergraduate bioinformatics courses offered in the life science curriculum
- How to cite: SJ L .In overall, the paper is nicely written and easy to read with a good flow. However, certain aspects of the paper can be described in greater detail.[Review of the article '21st Century Teaching For Students Of Medical Laboratory Technology: A Problem-Based Learning Approach ' by Ananthanarayanan P].WebmedCentral 2010;2(2):WMCRW00471
- Other Comments: "21st Century Teaching For Students Of Medical Laboratory Technology: A Problem-based Learning Approach" authored by Sajita Setia et al, puts forth the view that compared to traditional didactic lectures, a problem based approach to teaching and learning is more rewarding in terms of knowledge retention and application. The author presented an orderly explanation of the idea behind the study, and the methods. The authors hold that "Educational systems are accused of being too clumsy, producing bad instruction, and of being out of touch with today?s training needs." I strongly agree with the author's stated position, that clinical-problem based learning produces much better results than mere theory lectures. I have received undergraduate and post-graduate medical education, and have always been deeply interested in the different methods employed during my courses. When theoretical knowledge is extrapolated simultaneously to clinical scenarios, its impact on patient management becomes evident, and the concepts are grasped much better. The article is written in a smooth style and well referenced. While there were some grammatical errors, they did not detract significantly from the reading experience. I would like to suggest to the authors to expand the discussion section. Apart from the reiteration of the results, it would be interesting to know the views of the authors on how certain factors influenced the study; namely the topic chosen for PBL, the institute in which the study was conducted, and so on. Which concepts in their opinion would be best taught by PBL, and how effective could this model be with students in other disciplines. Overall, I would rate this article as a good and worthwhile read. I believe it would be very useful for professionals in the field of medical education, as it highlights some of the reforms needed to give our education system a much needed revamp.
-
Competing interests:
None
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
Yes -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Am a Masters degree holder. As a student, I received courses in various forms such as theory classes, practical sessions, group discussions, modules on clinical case scenarios and bedside rounds. I have also taken a few classes for small groups of undergraduates, mostly clinical case discussions. Ingenuity in the field of medical education always fascinates me. - How to cite: Sreenivasaiah C .Pleasantly written [Review of the article '21st Century Teaching For Students Of Medical Laboratory Technology: A Problem-Based Learning Approach ' by Ananthanarayanan P].WebmedCentral 2010;1(10):WMCRW0087
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a
This study ais timely and well designed. I will make a greater impact if number of subjects can be increased and taken from different institutions.
None
Yes
No
None
I have taught medical students and residents during my work as resident and registrar for total of 6 years in India.