Comparison of peer assisted learning versus conventional teaching system among undergraduate Medical students in term of knowledge, skill and attitude.
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of peer assisted learning versus conventional learning among the undergraduate students of a medical college in term of knowledge, skill and attitude. Study Design: Descriptive study. Setting: Department of Physiology Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical College Lyari. Period: 23 September to 04 November 2024. Methods: Non probability sampling technique was used to divide the group of 100 students from First year MBBS into two equal groups. One group ‘A’ of fifty students selected for Peer learning and the other group ‘B’ of fifty students selected for conventional learning through faculty teaching. Topic of ECG was selected, which included, knowledge about ECG and performance of electrocardiography on the subject. Formative assessments of both the sub groups were taken through BCQs, SEQs and OSPEs. Results: There was no significant difference (P≥ 0.05) in knowledge score, whereas significant difference was found in test scores of skill and attitude of PAL versus CT (P ≤ 0.01). Conclusion: Based on the findings of the current study, it can be concluded that both PAL and CT groups were found to be equally effective in improving knowledge, but PAL can be included in a curriculum to improve the skills and attitude of First year MBBS students regarding ECG.
Authors
- Syeda Nargis Fatima
- Ghazala Masood Farrukh
- Muhammad Khalid Siddiqui
- Zeeshan Ahmed (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8514-9625)
- Ashfaq Muhammad
- Anjum Rehman
Institutions
- Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University (PK)
- Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology (PK)
- Dow University of Health Sciences (PK)
- Women Medical College (PK)
Publication Details
- Journal
- The Professional Medical Journal
- Published
- 2025-02-03
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.29309/tpmj/2025.32.02.8827
- Primary Topic
- Innovations in Medical Education
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00