Medical students’ evaluation of competency-based and traditionaleducational environment using the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure

Gautam Chellani, A. Mahajan
{"title":"Medical students’ evaluation of competency-based and traditionaleducational environment using the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure","authors":"Gautam Chellani, A. Mahajan","doi":"10.34172/rdme.2022.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Competency-based medical education (CBME) was introduced in India in 2019 to transform the educational environment. Students’ perspectives are vital to incorporate positive changes and ameliorate shortcomings as important stakeholders. The authors have tried to capture these perceptions in the study. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 with randomly selected undergraduate student volunteers at a government medical college in Delhi, India. In all, 50 students were included from the first year enrolled in a competencybased curriculum and 50 from the second year studying a traditional curriculum. The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) was used to evaluate the perceptions of the educational environments. Results: Perception of learning (PL) showed a more positive response among the first-year students (using CBME) with a mean score of 32.18±6.32 in comparison to the second-year students following the traditional curriculum with a mean score of 29.04±7.29 (P=0.04). Total score, PL, students’ perception of teachers/teaching (PT), and academic self-perception (ASP) (P=0.03,<0.01, 0.02, 0.05 respectively), were higher in day-scholars in comparison to those who stayed in college-based housing (hostellers). Overall, no gender differences were seen. Conclusion: Better PL, a reduction in problem areas, and a favorable environment in day scholars compared to hostellers were all seen in students following the CBME method. Perceptions of the two groups of students concerning support systems and other aspects such as students irritating teachers, cheating, and perceived boredom were different. This analysis of the educational environment can serve as helpful feedback to curriculum designers.","PeriodicalId":21087,"journal":{"name":"Research and Development in Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Development in Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/rdme.2022.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:Competency-based medical education (CBME) was introduced in India in 2019 to transform the educational environment. Students’ perspectives are vital to incorporate positive changes and ameliorate shortcomings as important stakeholders. The authors have tried to capture these perceptions in the study. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 with randomly selected undergraduate student volunteers at a government medical college in Delhi, India. In all, 50 students were included from the first year enrolled in a competencybased curriculum and 50 from the second year studying a traditional curriculum. The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) was used to evaluate the perceptions of the educational environments. Results: Perception of learning (PL) showed a more positive response among the first-year students (using CBME) with a mean score of 32.18±6.32 in comparison to the second-year students following the traditional curriculum with a mean score of 29.04±7.29 (P=0.04). Total score, PL, students’ perception of teachers/teaching (PT), and academic self-perception (ASP) (P=0.03,<0.01, 0.02, 0.05 respectively), were higher in day-scholars in comparison to those who stayed in college-based housing (hostellers). Overall, no gender differences were seen. Conclusion: Better PL, a reduction in problem areas, and a favorable environment in day scholars compared to hostellers were all seen in students following the CBME method. Perceptions of the two groups of students concerning support systems and other aspects such as students irritating teachers, cheating, and perceived boredom were different. This analysis of the educational environment can serve as helpful feedback to curriculum designers.
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
用邓迪就绪教育环境量表对医学生能力本位和传统教育环境的评价
背景:基于能力的医学教育(CBME)于2019年在印度引入,旨在改变教育环境。作为重要的利益相关者,学生的观点对于融入积极的变化和改善缺点至关重要。作者试图在研究中捕捉到这些观点。方法:在2020年8月至2021年5月期间,对印度德里一所公立医学院的本科生志愿者进行了一项横断面研究。总共有50名第一年入学的学生参加了以竞争力为基础的课程,第二年有50名学生参加了传统课程的学习。Dundee Ready教育环境测量(DREM)用于评估对教育环境的感知。结果:一年级学生(使用CBME)的学习感知(PL)表现出更积极的反应,平均得分为32.18±6.32,而遵循传统课程的二年级学生的平均得分为29.04±7.29(P=0.04),和学术自我感知(ASP)(分别为P=0.03,<0.01,0.02,0.05),与住在大学宿舍(宿舍)的人相比,走读生的自我感知(ASP.)更高。总体而言,没有发现性别差异。结论:与寄宿生相比,采用CBME方法的学生表现出更好的PL、问题领域的减少以及良好的日间学者环境。两组学生对支持系统和其他方面的看法不同,如学生激怒老师、作弊和无聊感。这种对教育环境的分析可以作为对课程设计者的有益反馈。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
The role of academic stress and scientific motivation in predicting research spirit among the students of medicalsciences The relationship between identity development and medical students’ performance in technology-integrated English language classrooms Challenges in the educational system of maxillofacial surgery residency training in Iran: Monodisciplinarity system or dual degree system? The use of social media (communication applications) in the training of medical students, especially oral and maxillofacial surgery residents in Iran Challenges and acceptance of e-teaching among medical professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
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