CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · National Journal of Clinical Anatomy 2017; 06(03): 208-214
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1700747
Original Article
Society of Clinical Anatomists

Utility of Web 2.0 tools for self-directed learning among first year MBBS Students

Patil Shrish
1  Associate Professor, Dept of Anatomy, Basaveshwara Medical College & Hospital, Chitradurga, Karnataka
,
S.M Manjunath
2  Associate Professor, Dept of Pharmacology, Basaveshwara Medical College & Hospital, Chitradurga, Karnataka
,
Madhumati Nidoni
3  Reader, Dept of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, SJM Dental College & Hospital, Chitradurga, Karnataka
,
Nagesh Raju G
4  Prof & Head, Dept of Pharmacology, Basaveshwara Medical College & Hospital, Chitradurga, Karnataka
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 November 2019 (online)

Abstract

Background and aims: To use Web 2.0 tools for learning human histology by First year MBBS students and thus make them aware of the features of these tools. To assess, by way of a feedback, the utility of the web 2.0 tools as instruments for self- directed learning. Materials and Methods:A questionnaire based longitudinal study was administered to sixty students. Their knowledge level about Web 2.0 tools, Self directed learning and Competency based learning were assessed. Then they were asked to participate in online discussions using Web 2.0 tools. Opinion regarding the utility of these Web 2.0 tools was collected using pre-validated questionnaires. Results: Awareness of Web 2.0 tools and Self-Directed Learning [SDL] was low. Even though students found the Web 2.0 tools to be good instruments for learning of that material which was not taught in routine classes, several students preferred their learning to be guided by teachers. Conclusion: Web 2.0 tools are good instruments for Self Directed Learning which leads to better development of competencies required of a professional doctor. Web 2.0 tools need to be integrated into our current curriculum to be fully utilised. These tools are yet to find acceptance by the students.

 
  • References

  • 1 Gupta B, White DA, Walmsley AD. The attitudes of undergraduate students and staff to the use of electronic learning. BrDent J2004; 196[8]: 487-92.
  • 2 Abraham RR, Fisher M, Kamath A, Izzati TA, Saidatul NN. Exploring first-year undergraduate medical students’ self-directed learning readiness to physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 2011; 35:393-5.
  • 3 Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ, AMEE GUIDE. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Med Teach, 2015,37:312-22.
  • 4 Barrows HS, Tamblyn R. Problem - based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer; 1980.
  • 5 Dolmans DHJM, Schmidt HG. What drives the student in problem-based learning? Med Educ 1994; 28 [5]:372-380.
  • 6 Gupta R, Singh N, Henri BK. A questionnaire based study on student preparedness to web 2.0 at I MBBS entry level. J Contemp Med Educ 2015; 3[2],53-58.
  • 7 Ribeiro LRC. The Pros and Cons of Problem-Based Learning from the Teacher’s Standpoint. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 2011;8[1].
  • 8 Zayapragassarazan Z, Kumar S. The Internet and Education. NTTC Bulletin 2010; 17[l]:4-6.
  • 9 Salajan DF, Mount GJ. Leveraging the Power of Web 2.0 Tools: A Wiki Platform as a Multimedia Teaching and Learning Environment in Dental Education. J Dent Educ 2012; 76[4]:427-36.
  • 10 Tyagi S. Adoption of Web 2.0 technology in higher education: A case study of universities in National Capital Region, India. Int J Educ Dev Using Inf Commun Technol 2012;8[2], 28-43.
  • 11 Bower, M. A Typology of Web 2.0 Learning Technologies. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/csd6280.pdf [Date accessed 12 July 2016]
  • 12 Pilling-Cormick J. Development of the Self-Directed Learning Perception Scale [dissertation], [Ontario, Canada]: University of Toronto; 1996.
  • 13 Frambach JM, Driessen EW, Chan LC, van der Vleuten CP. Rethinking the globalisationof problem-based learning: how culture challenges self-directed learning. Med Educ 2012; 46:738-747.
  • 14 Lucieer SM, van der Geest JN, Elói-Santos SM, de Faria RMD, Jonker L, Visscher C, et al. The development of self-regulated learning during the pre- linical stage of medical school: A comparison between a lecture-based and a problem-based curriculum. Adv in Health Sei Educ 2016;21[1]:93-l04.
  • 15 Brown JS, Adler RP. Minds On Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0 EDUCAUSE Review 2008;17-32.
  • 16 Grow GO. “Teaching learners to be self-directed.” Adult Education Quarterly 1996;41[3],125-49.
  • 17 DLN Series. What is Competency Based 21. Learning? http://digitallearningnow.com/site/uploads/2013/01/What-is-CB-Leaming-FINAL.pdf [Date accessed 11 July 2016]
  • 18 Vision 2015, Medical Council of India. http://www.mciindia.org/tools/announcement/MCI_b ooklet.pdf [Date accessed 11 July 2016]
  • 19 Rajab LD, Baqain ZH. Use of Information and Communication Technology among Dental Students at the University of Jordan. J Dent Educ 2005; 69[3]:387-98.
  • 20 Bender T. Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory, Practice and Assessment. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing; 2003.
  • 21 Brown NE, Bussert K. Information literacy 2.0: Empowering Students through Personal Engagement. Paper presented at: Seventh International Educational Technology [IETC] Conference; 2007 May 3-5; Nicosia, Turkish Republic ofNorthem Cyprus.