Authors

1 Department of Pharmacology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, India

2 Department of Pharmacology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun, India

3 Department of Pediatrics, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, India

Abstract

Introduction: Providing feedback to students is an essentialcomponent in medical education and has been shown to improvethe students’ learning. The purpose of this study is to evaluatethe effect of computer-based immediate feedback on the medicalstudents’ learning in a pharmacology course.Methods: In this prospective intervention study some feedbackmodules in pharmacology (FMP) were prepared in two topics:the cardiovascular system (CVS) and chemotherapy, using blanktemplates on “Hot Potatoes” software. The FMP included MCbasedquestions and two versions were developed: one withfeedback (FMP-1) and the other without feedback (FMP-2). TheFMP-1 module provided immediate feedback for each option thestudent chose. The students (n=48) were randomized by computergenerated random number table to two groups A and B to receivethe module in CVS, i.e., FMP-1 and FMP-2, respectively. A crossoverdesign was adopted to expose all students to immediatefeedback modules. The test scores were compared and feedbackwas obtained from students and faculty using a validatedquestionnaire. A focus group discussion was conducted to clarifythe issues raised by the students.Results: The module with immediate feedback was much betterappreciated by the students than the module without feedback.The students spent more time on FMP-1 (42±7.00 minutes vs27±12.36 minutes; p

  1. Wood BP. Feedback: a key feature of medical training. Radiology. 2000;215:17-9.
  2. Revell SM, McCurry MK. Engaging millennial learners: effectiveness of personal response system technology with nursing students in small and large classrooms. J Nurs Educ. 2010;49:272-5.
  3. Medical Council of India. Regulations on Graduate Medical Education. [Internet]. New Delhi, 1997 March 4. [updated; 2017 July cited; 2018 May 14] Available from: https://www.mciindia.org/CMS/rules-regulations/graduate-medical-education-regulations-1997.
  4. Perera J, Lee N, Win K, Perera J, Wijesuriya L. Formative feedback to students: the mismatch between faculty perceptions and student expectations. Med Teach. 2008;30:395-9.
  5. Johannesson E, Olsson M, Petersson G, Silen C. Learning features in computer simulation skills training. Nurse Educ Pract. 2010;10:268-73.
  6. Hot Potatoes version 6. [Internet]. 2009 [updated 2011 Nov 22; cited 2018 May 14]. Available from http://hotpot.uvic.ca/.
  7. Burford B, Hesketh A, Wakeling J, Bagnall G, Colthart I, Illing J1, et al. Asking the right questions and getting meaningful responses: 12 tips on developing and administering a questionnaire survey for healthcare professionals. Med Teacher. 2009;31:207-11.
  8. Reswell JW. Mixed methods procedures. In: Laughton CD, editor. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications; 2003.p. 208-27.
  9. Wong L P. Focus group discussion: a tool for health and medical research. Singapore Med J. 2008;49:256-61.
  10. Bienstock JL, Katz NT, Cox SM, Hueppchen N, Erickson S, Puscheck EE. To the point: medical education reviews–providing feedback. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:508-13.
  11. Elliott RA, McDowell J, Marriott JL, Calandra A, Duncan G. A pharmacy preregistration course using online teaching and learning methods. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73:1-8.
  12. Cain J, Black EP, Rohr J. An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73:1-7.