Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experiential learning sessions as a teaching aid have been applied early in the
medical undergraduate curriculum to improve the knowledge and inculcate research interest. We
compared the ability of 1st‑year medical undergraduates to answer the molecular biology questions
among those who had attended the experiential learning sessions of molecular biology techniques
versus those who did not attend.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was carried out with 200 1st‑year medical
undergraduates, among whom 69 students were selected by simple random sampling for the
demonstration of the molecular biology techniques, such as isolation of genomic DNA, polymerase
chain reaction, cell culture techniques, western blotting, and high‑performance liquid chromatography
for 1‑week duration. Student’s feedback was collected on a five‑point Likert sc ale at the end of the
session to understand how they agree or disagree with a particular statement. The content validity
rate (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) of the questionnaire were determined, and its internal
consistency was examined by Cronbach’s alpha. The internal assessment marks of these students,
valued by faculty who were blinded to their training sessions, were compared with the rest of the
131 students by independent t‑test to know the outcome of these experiential learning sessions.
RESULTS: On CVR and CVI assessment, all the questions scored more than 0.70 and 0.85,
respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for the whole questionnaire was 0.85. Student’s feedback indicated
that these sessions did complement the cognitive skills acquired for these techniques. We also
found a statistically significant improvement (P = 0.006) in the examination performance between
the students who attended versus those who did not attend the experiential learning sessions.
CONCLUSION: Experiential learning, through demonstration and hands‑on experience, enhance d
the learning of molecular biology techniques among 1st‑year medical undergraduates.
Keywords
- Vitale I. Molecular biology. In: Reference Module in Life Sciences.
Italy: Elsevier; 2017. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/B9780128096338123817. [Last accessed
on 2020 May 21].
2. Robinson BW, Erle DJ, Jones DA, Shapiro S, Metzger WJ,
Albelda SM, et al. Recent advances in molecular biological
techniques and their relevance to pulmonary research. Thorax
2000;55:329‑39.
3. Beilby J. Diagnostic molecular biology. Clin Biochem Rev
2006;27:3‑4.
4. Ronai I. How the Techniques of Molecular Biology are Developed
from Natural Systems. SocArXiv 2018;‑. Available from: https://
osf.io/t8jf4. [Last accessed on 2020 May 21].
5. Friedlander MJ. Commentary: Learning by doing biomedical
research‑value added for medical education? Med Sci Educ
2019;29:5‑7.
6. Bates AW. 3.6 Experiential learning: Learning by doing. In:
Teaching in a Digital Age. Tony Bates Associates Ltd; 2015.
Available from: https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
chapter/4‑4‑models‑for‑teaching‑by‑doing/. [Last accessed on
2020 May 22].
7. Bosnjak H, Pavelic K, Kraljevic Pavelic S. Towards preventive
medicine. High‑throughput methods from molecular biology are
about to change daily clinical practice. EMBO Rep 2008;9:1056‑60.
8. Dwivedi S, Purohit P, Misra R, Pareek P, Goel A, Khattri S, et al.
Diseases and molecular diagnostics: A step closer to precision
medicine. Indian J Clin Biochem 2017;32:374‑98.
9. Katoh M. Great challenges in molecular medicine: Toward
personalized medicine. Front Cell Dev Biol 2013;1: doi. 10.3389/
fcell. 2013.00001 - 10. Wolyniak MJ, Bemis LT, Prunuske AJ. Improving medical
students’ knowledge of genetic disease: A review of current
and emerging pedagogical practices. Adv Med Educ Pract
2015;6:597‑607.
11. Begum J, Ali SI, Panda M. Introduction of Interactive Teaching
for Undergraduate Students in Community Medicine. Indian J
Community Med 2020;45:72‑6.
12. Lupi CS, Lefevre F, Ward‑Peterson M. Evidence‑based medicine
skills that last: A transferable model utilizing integration, spaced
learning, and repetition with a single study design among
second‑year medical students. Med Ed Publish 2017;6: doi.
10.15694/mep. 2017.000221.
13. Zee M, de Boer M, Jaarsma AD. Acquiring evidence‑based
medicine and research skills in the undergraduate medical
curriculum: Three different didactical formats compared. Perspect
Med Educ 2014;3:357‑70.
14. Burgoyne LN, O’Flynn S, Boylan GB. Undergraduate medical
research: The student perspective. Med Educ Online 2010;15: doi.
10.3402/meo.v15i0.5212.
15. Ibrahim Abushouk A, Nazmy Hatata A, Mahmoud Omran I,
Mahmoud Youniss M, Fayez Elmansy K, Gad Meawad A.
Attitudes and perceived barriers among medical students towards
clinical research: A cross‑sectional study in an Egyptian Medical
School 2016. J Biomed Educ Hindawi 2016;:e5490575. doi.https://
doi.org/10.1155/2016/5490575
16. Möller R, Shoshan M. Medical students’ research productivity
and career preferences; a 2‑year prospective follow‑up study.
BMC Med Educ 2017;17:51.
)