Two Weeks in Anesthesia and Learner’s Satisfaction: the Impact of Different Teaching Methods

Main Article Content

Pichaya Waitayawinyu

Abstract

Background: Difference in teaching methods can influence learner satisfaction. Didactic lecture has become a less effective teaching method for clinical year medical students. Since 2009, Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj hospital, Thailand has complied to a new policy on decreasing of didactic lecture. The purpose of this study is to evaluate undergraduate anesthesia educational program by learners’ satisfaction survey. Methods: At the end of 2 weeks rotation, 5th-year medical students of the first half of the year 2013 class were asked to anonymously complete the questionnaires about their overall satisfaction level and to rank their three most satisfied and unsatisfied teaching methods among eight activities; lecture, skill lab, clinical attachment at GI endoscopy suite, teaching of basic skills in anesthesia in OR, bedside teaching in OR, small group discussion, case presentation, and simulation. Results: 150 questionnaires (100%) were returned and analyzed. The overall satisfaction level was 7.4 of 10. The satisfied activities were simulation (23%), the teaching of basic skills in OR (21%), and bedside teaching in OR (15%). The unsatisfied methods were case presentation (30%), small group discussion (29%), and lecture (20.5%). However, 73.3% of students put more than three ranks in each category. Thirty eight percent of students did not report any unsatisfied methods. Conclusion: Overall satisfaction rate was relatively high. The students tended to like hands-on more than classroom-based activities.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
Original articles

References

1. Meo SA. Basic steps in establishing effective small group
teaching sessions in medical schools. Pak J Med Scj
2013;29:1071-6.
2. Cendan JC1, Silver M, Ben-David K. Changing the student
clerkship from traditional lectures to small group case-based
sessions benefits the student and faculty. J Surg Educ
2011;68:117-20.
3. Elliott KM, Shin D. Student satisfaction: an alternative
approach to assessing this important concept. J High Educ
Policy Manag 2002;24:197-209.
4. Martinez-Flisser G, Fisser A, Castro-Guerrero MA,
Plett_Torres T. Measuring student satisfaction as the first
assessment of the program of combined studies in medicine,
an MD/PhD-like program of the faculty of medicine, national
autonomous university of Mexico. BMC Med Educ 2020;
20:446-51.
5. United Kingdom National Student Survey [internet]. 2021
[Cited 2021 June 2]. Available from:https://www.thestudentsurvey.com/
6. Weller JM. Simulation in undergraduate medical education:
bridging the gap between theory and practice. Med Educ
2004;38:32-8.
7. Okuda Y, Bryson EO, DeMaria S Jr, et al. The utility of
simulation in medical education: what is the evidence? Mt
Sinai J Med 2009;76:330-43.
8. Turatsinze S, Willson A, Sessions H, Cartledge PT. Medical
student satisfaction and confidence in simulation-based
learning in Rwanda-pre and post-simulation survey research.
Afr J Emerg Med 2020;10:84-9.
9. Lertbunnaphong T. Simulation Based Medical Education.
Siriraj Medical Bulletin 2015;1:39-46.
10. Lee CK, Ling YY, Leng LW, Chang SY. Comparing effectiveness
of high-fedelity human patient simulation vs case-based
learning in pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ 2014;
78:153.