Table 1 The facilitators’ rating of the small group learning and problem case scenario
Item | No. (%) | Mean (SD) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 (Never) | 2 (Rarely) | 3 (Sometimes) | 4 (Often) | 5 (Always) | |||
Small group learning | |||||||
1 | There is proper students’ training before starting the PBL. | 2 (4.3) | 1 (2.2) | 8 (17.4) | 9 (19.6) | 26 (56.5) | 4.22 (1.08) |
2 | The students themselves read the problem case scenario that is given by the facilitator. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.2) | 3 (6.5) | 42 (91.3) | 4.89 (0.37) |
3 | The group leader engages all the students in the discussion equally. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 7 (15.2) | 27 (58.7) | 12 (26.1) | 4.11 (0.63) |
4 | The students have a chance to talk more than the facilitator. | 0 (0) | 1 (2.2) | 2 (4.3) | 11 (23.9) | 32 (69.6) | 4.61 (0.67) |
5 | The students express their point of view by hand-raising (without interrupting other students’ points of view). | 1 (2.2) | 0 (0) | 6 (13) | 28 (60.9) | 11 (23.9) | 4.04 (0.75) |
6 | The scribe writes the main point of the discussion. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.2) | 8 (17.4) | 37 (80.4) | 4.78 (0.46) |
7 | The students themselves identify the learning objectives. | 0 (0) | 1 (2.2) | 3 (6.5) | 23 (50) | 19 (41.3) | 4.3 (0.69) |
8 | A student summarizes the case scenario at the beginning of the second part of the tutorial (second session). | 2 (4.3) | 3 (6.5) | 5 (10.9) | 9 (19.6) | 27 (58.7) | 4.22 (1.14) |
9 | The students do the presentation appropriately for the second part of the tutorial (second session). | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (6.5) | 14 (30.4) | 29 (63) | 4.57 (0.61) |
10 | A student summarizes the case scenario at the end of the second part of the tutorial (second session) “case integration”. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (10.9) | 13 (28.3) | 28 (60.9) | 4.5 (0.68) |
11 | Learning resources (e.g. library, computers and IT support) are provided to support the learning process. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 6 (13) | 10 (21.7) | 30 (65.2) | 4.52 (0.71) |
Overall mean | 4.43 | ||||||
Problem case scenario | |||||||
1 | PBL case scenarios are clearly written. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (2.2) | 18 (39.1) | 27 (58.7) | 4.57 (0.54) |
2 | PBL case scenarios have an appropriate trigger. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (8.7) | 18 (39.1) | 24 (52.2) | 4.43 (0.65) |
3 | PBL case scenarios generate a range of differential diagnoses (in the first session). | 0 (0) | 1 (2.2) | 4 (8.7) | 16 (34.8) | 25 (54.3) | 4.41 (0.74) |
4 | PBL case scenarios have an appropriate level of difficulty. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 5 (10.9) | 20 (43.5) | 21 (45.7) | 4.35 (0.67) |
5 | PBL case scenarios are related (contextualized) to local settings | 0 (0) | 3 (6.5) | 6 (13) | 18 (39.1) | 19 (41.3) | 4.15 (0.88) |
Overall mean | 4.38 | ||||||