↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

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

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Medical Education and Practice, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Matching medical student achievement to learning objectives and outcomes: a paradigm shift for an implemented teaching module
Published in
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, April 2018
DOI 10.2147/amep.s158784
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ihab Shafek Atta, Fahd Nasser AlQahtani

Abstract

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

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Lecturer 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 13 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 13 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,963,058
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,831
of 344,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,843 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them