Table 3 The students’ 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. | 49 (15.1) | 66 (20.4) | 89 (27.5) | 67 (20.7) | 53 (16.4) | 3.03 (1.29) |
2 | The students themselves read the problem case scenario that is given by the facilitator. | 6 (1.9) | 9 (2.8) | 20 (6.2) | 45 (13.9) | 244 (75.3) | 4.58 (0.87) |
3 | The group leader engages all the students in the discussion equally. | 8 (2.5) | 32 (9.9) | 76 (23.5) | 101 (31.2) | 107 (33) | 3.82 (1.07) |
4 | The students have a chance to talk more than the facilitator. | 5 (1.5) | 9 (2.8) | 58 (17.9) | 111 (34.3) | 141 (43.5) | 4.15 (0.92) |
5 | The students express their point of view by hand-raising (without interrupting other students’ points of view). | 13 (4) | 34 (10.5) | 74 (22.8) | 115 (35.5) | 88 (27.2) | 3.71 (1.09) |
6 | The scribe writes the main point of the discussion. | 5 (1.5) | 6 (1.9) | 40 (12.3) | 68 (21) | 205 (63.3) | 4.43 (0.89) |
7 | The students themselves identify the learning objectives. | 2 (0.6) | 14 (4.3) | 46 (14.2) | 115 (35.5) | 147 (45.4) | 4.21 (0.88) |
8 | A student summarizes the case scenario at the beginning of the second part of the tutorial (second session). | 19 (5.9) | 33 (10.2) | 70 (21.6) | 81 (25) | 121 (37.3) | 3.78 (1.21) |
9 | The students do the presentation appropriately for the second part of the tutorial (second session). | 3 (0.9) | 13 (4) | 31 (9.6) | 84 (25.9) | 193 (59.6) | 4.39 (0.88) |
10 | A student summarizes the case scenario at the end of the second part of the tutorial (second session) “case integration”. | 24 (7.4) | 35 (10.8) | 53 (16.4) | 76 (23.5) | 136 (42) | 3.82 (1.28) |
11 | Learning resources (e.g. library, computers, and IT support) are provided to support the learning process. | 17 (5.2) | 29 (9) | 59 (18.2) | 87 (26.9) | 132 (40.7) | 3.89 (1.19) |
Overall mean | 3.98 | ||||||
Problem case scenario | |||||||
1 | PBL case scenarios are clearly written. | 8 (2.5) | 10 (3.1) | 48 (14.8) | 120 (37) | 138 (42.6) | 4.14 (0.95) |
2 | PBL case scenarios have an appropriate trigger. | 8 (2.5) | 14 (4.3) | 54 (16.7) | 129 (39.8) | 119 (36.7) | 4.04 (0.96) |
3 | PBL case scenarios generate a range of differential diagnoses (in the first session). | 6 (1.9) | 12 (3.7) | 63 (19.4) | 111 (34.3) | 132 (40.7) | 4.08 (0.95) |
4 | PBL case scenarios have an appropriate level of difficulty. | 6 (1.9) | 11 (3.4) | 68 (21) | 132 (40.7) | 107 (33) | 4.0 (0.92) |
5 | PBL case scenarios are related (contextualized) to local settings | 8 (2.5) | 18 (5.6) | 72 (22.2) | 107 (33) | 119 (36.7) | 3.96 (1.02) |
Overall mean | 4.04 | ||||||