PARAMETERS ASSESSED FOR QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT OF MODULAR SYSTEM BY THE STUDENTS OF FIRST AND SECOND YEAR MBBS
PDF

How to Cite

Rahim, A., & Iqbal, K. (2013). PARAMETERS ASSESSED FOR QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT OF MODULAR SYSTEM BY THE STUDENTS OF FIRST AND SECOND YEAR MBBS. KHYBER MEDICAL UNIVERSITY JOURNAL, 5(2). Retrieved from https://www.kmuj.kmu.edu.pk/article/view/86-90

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality and management of the modularsystem in the first two years of Islamic international medical collegeRawalpindi.

METHODOLOGY: Based on convenience sampling, 180 students of firstand second year MBBS of Islamic International medical college Rawalpindiwere given proforma at the end of each module and evaluated bythe evaluation committee.

RESULTS: First year students, showed agreement for objectives ofthe module, integration of theory & practical’s, and for grasping of themodule. They were dissatisfied with the time management of the topiccompletion. Second year students were dissatisfied with integration oftheory & practical’s. Students of first year strongly disagreed (11.2%)that assessment reflects the objectives in contrast to 2nd year (8.8 %).Captivation of interest of module content agreement was 44% for 1styear student’s vs 29.7% for 2nd year. Strong agreement for the reflectionof objectives was 20.5% of 1st year students vs 1.1% for 2nd year students.Second year was satisfied with the PBL content (20.6%). Strongagreement was shown by 12.2% of 1st year students as compared to 5.5% of 2nd year that it encouraged the thinking process.

CONCLUSION: Overall students are satisfied with the modular system.First year students are not satisfied with the time management of thetopic completion, content of the module and assessment reflecting theobjectives. Second years students were more satisfied than 1st yearstudents except for integration of theory & practicals. Efforts are neededto address the students concerns regarding modular system.

PDF

References

Flexner A. Medical Education in the United

States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie

Foundation for the advancement of

Teaching, 1910. Bulletin No. 4, New York

City: The Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching.

Schmidt HG. Problem-based learning:

rationale and description. Med Edu 1983;

: 11-6.

Mostafa M. El-Naggar, Hussein A, Mohamed

AS, Hamdy D, Waleed AM.Developing an integrated organ/system

curriculum with community-orientation

for a new medical college in Jazan, Saudi

Arabia. J Family Community Med 2007;

(3): 127-36.

Sandila MP, Siddiqui NA, Bawa MT, Huda

N. An integrated curriculum for MBBS. J

Pak Med Assoc 2001; 51(2): 60-3.

Ghayur S, Rafi S, Khan AH, Ahmad RN,

Iqbal M. Delivering endocrinology and

reproduction in an integrated modular

curriculum. J Pak Med Assoc 2012; 62(9):

-41.

Middle States Commission on Higher

Education. Student Learning, Assessment.

Options and Resources. Second Edition.

Middle States Commission on

Higher Education, Philadelphia.

Chumley-Jones HS, Dobbie A, Alford

CL. Web-based learning: Sound educational

method or hype? A review of the

evaluation literature. Acad Med 2002: 77:

S86-93.

Parikh A, McReelis K, Hodges B. Student

feedback in problem based learning: A

survey of 103 final year students across

five Ontario medical schools. Med Educ

; 35(7): 632-6.

Papinczak T, Young L, Groves M, Haynes

M. An analysis of peer, self, and tutor

assessment in problem-based learning

tutorials. Med Teach 2007; 29(5): 122-32.

Brynhildsen J, Dahle LO, BehrbohmFallsberg

M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Attitudes

among students and teachers on vertical

integration between clinical medicine and

basic science within a problem-based

undergraduate medical curriculum. Med

Teach 2002; 24(3): 286-8.

Vermet S, McGinnis K, Boodham M, GleberzonBJ.

Degree of vertical integration

between the undergraduate program

and clinical internship with respect to

lumbopelvic diagnostic and therapeutic

procedures taught at the Canadian memorial

chiropractic college. J Chiropr Educ

; 24(1): 46-56.

Humphrey SP, Mathews RE, Kaplan AL,

Beeman CS. Undergraduate basic science

preparation for dental school. J Dent Educ

; 66(11): 1252-9.

Mierson S. A problem-based learning

course in physiology for undergraduate

and graduate basic science students. Am J

Physiol 1998; 275 (6 Pt 2): S16-27.

He X, La Rose J, Zhang N. Integrated

neuroscience program: an alternative

approach to teaching neurosciences to

chiropractic students. J Chiropr Educ

; 23: 134–46.

Custers EJ, Cate OT. Medical students’

attitudes towards and perception of the

basic sciences: a comparison between

students in the old and the new curriculum

at the University Medical Center Utrecht,

The Netherlands. Med Educ 2002; 36:

-50.

Ghosh S, Pandya HV. Implementation of

Integrated Learning Program in neurosciences

during first year of traditional

medical course: perception of students

and faculty. BMC Med Educ 2008; 8: 44.

Gemmell HA. Comparison of teaching orthopedics

using an integrated case-based

curriculum and a conventional curriculum:

a preliminary study. Clin Chiropr 2007; 10:

-42.

Work published in KMUJ is licensed under a

 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.

Creative Commons License

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.