Impact of reflection writing on the learning ability of Indian medical students.

IF 1.9 Bioinformation Pub Date : 2024-05-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.6026/973206300200587
Rekha Jiwane, Vivekanand Gajbhiye, Sandip Hulke, Ruchi Singh, Ragini Shrivastava, Varun Malhotra
{"title":"Impact of reflection writing on the learning ability of Indian medical students.","authors":"Rekha Jiwane, Vivekanand Gajbhiye, Sandip Hulke, Ruchi Singh, Ragini Shrivastava, Varun Malhotra","doi":"10.6026/973206300200587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":8962,"journal":{"name":"Bioinformation","volume":"20 5","pages":"587-591"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11309105/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioinformation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6026/973206300200587","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反思写作对印度医科学生学习能力的影响。
反思性写作可以培养学生的元认知。因此,我们有兴趣比较个人反思性写作和小组反思性写作在授课后的效果。因此,我们将印度博帕尔 AIIMS 的 124 名一年级学生分成两组,每组 62 人。两组学生都使用反思问卷进行了前测。学生们学习了反思性写作。两组学生都参加了两个不同主题的生理学讲座。首先是关于体液的讲座,A 组学生单独撰写反思,B 组学生分组(B1 至 B6)撰写反思。在另一个关于水肿病理生理学的讲座后,A 组以小组为单位撰写反思,B 组以个人为单位撰写反思(A1 至 A6)。两组学生都参加了关于讲座反思写作的 MCQ 测试。干预结束后,两组学生都接受了反思问卷的后测。前测的平均值和标准差分别为 3.86 ± 0.86,后测的平均值和标准差分别为 7.58 ± 1.01。个人反思的平均值和标准差分别为 38.05 ± 4.41,小组反思的平均值和标准差分别为 27.45 ± 3.93,P 值均小于 0.05。对第二次授课后以小组为单位撰写反思的学生进行了评价,个人撰写反思的平均值和标准差分别为 38.22 ± 4.64,小组撰写反思的平均值和标准差分别为 27.03 ± 2.87,P 值小于 0.05。与单独撰写反思的学生相比,分组撰写反思的学生的表现并不令人满意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bioinformation
Bioinformation MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
期刊最新文献
Antifungal effects of natural extracts on Candida albicans. Artificial intelligence in the radiological diagnosis of cancer. Assessment of crestal bone loss surrounding dental implants using CBCT in different tissue biotypes. Assessment of maternal knowledge on neonatal danger signs. Clinical characterization, molecular and genomic sequencing analysis of SARS-Cov-2 during second wave at Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, India.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1