The effectiveness of the problem-based learning in medical cell biology education

Abstract

Background: Problem-based learning (PBL) was widely adopted in medical cell biology education for Chinese student; however, there was no systematic analysis to prove PBL was much more effective than lecture-based learning (LBL). Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of PBL on cell biology curriculum compared with LBL. Method: We systematically searched the publications related to PBL teaching approach in cell biology curriculum for medical education from databases until to February 2021. Pooled standard mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios with their 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the effectiveness of PBL and the satisfaction of students to PBL compared to LBL in meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the included studies was assessed by statistical I 2 of heterogeneity. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed to analyze the source of heterogeneity. Funnel plots and Egger tests were performed to assess publication bias. Result: After initial searching and selection, 9 studies were included for meta-analysis. All of these 9 studies were in high quality. The SMDs (95% confidence intervals) of total examination scores and comprehensive examination scores between PBL and LBL curriculum in cell biology teaching was calculated to be 0.89 (0.52, 1.26) and 0.53 (0.29, 0.78). Meanwhile, the risk ratios of the satisfaction of PBL vs LBL were calculated to be 1.18 (0.96, 1.46). However, there was a heterogeneity among the pooled SMDs of 10 studies with I 2 = 89.7%, P < .001. The factors including the different teachers, the similar or same examination paper and over 100 student numbers among PBL and LBL groups raised the heterogeneity in the pooled SMDs. There is no publication bias in these 10 publications after Egger and Begg test. Conclusion: The result indicated PBL was better than LBL in improvement of examination scores and comprehensive examination scores in cell biology curriculum to some extent. However, the satisfaction of students to PBL and LBL had no difference. The factors, including the different teachers, the similar or same examination papers and over 100 student numbers, affected the effectiveness of PBL and raised the heterogeneity of the pooled SMDs.

A comparison of problem-based learning and lecture-based learning in internal medicine course at The School of Medicine and Pharmacy – the University of Danang

“…Many studies comparing the level of improvement in learning outcomes, scores of the PBL method compared with the traditional method give similar results. Author Xu, after searching and selecting 9 high-quality studies for inclusion in a meta-analysis, noted: The mean score (95% confidence interval) of the total PBL program test score was significantly higher than 0.89 (0.52 -1.26) compared to the traditional class at the end of teaching the cell biology module 0.53 (0.29-0.78) [13]. Gurpinar's study, when comparing the average scores obtained on 25 questions on the knowledge test in the public health class, found that the PBL group scores higher than the traditional group (65.0 versus 60.5).…”

Application of integrated problem-based learning combined with lecture-based classroom teaching in undergraduate medical education: An effective teaching model in a Medical School in China

“…Overall, our findings were in accordance with previous studies, in which the case-based PBL could improve the student' grades and be adapted to different courses. [19][20][21][22][23] With the willingness of good performances in the class, students would strengthen their independent learning and review carefully, which was sometimes beyond the goal designed. [24] Students' feedback of the integrated PBL for the basic and clinical medicine courses were collected.…”

Effect of Scaffolding and Peer Review on Learning in a PAD Class

“…By December, 2021, Ding et al (2023) found that the PAD class approach has been implemented in more than 1000 schools and more than 3,400 papers and studies on it were published in China. Several others were published by Chinese proponents of the technique in international journals (Li et al, 2021;Xu et al, 2021;Wang et al, 2021).…”