Skinner’s Programmed Learning Versus Conventional Teaching Method in Medical Education: A Comparative Study
Keywords:
Skinner’s Approach, Programmed Learning, Medical Education, Comparative StudyAbstract
Introduction: B.F. Skinner (1958) popularized the Skinner's approach of linear programmed learning to improve teaching methods.The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of skinner’s programmed learning method over conventional routing teaching method among third MBBS students of AMC MET Medical College, Ahmedabad.
Methods: Third M.B.B.S students of AMC MET Medical College, Ahmedabad were divided into group A(roll no.1-49) & group B (roll no.50-98). Group A was taught topics of breast &esophagus by skinner’s method while group B was taught same topics by routine teaching method by same professor of surgery department. Both the groups were assessed by asking questions of six marks of each during 8th& 9th semester examination. Data was complied into excel sheet and analyzed with appropriate statistical test at significance of 0.05.
Result: Out of 98 students, 50 were male & 48 were females. Equal numbers of students were present in both groups during the scheduled lectures. Difference of sex distribution, attending lecturers & scoring in examination among both the groups was statistically not significant (P>0.05). Statistically significant positive correlation was found between attending topics taught by skinner’s method with the result obtained in examinations (P=0.000).
Conclusion: Skinner’s programmed learning method was positively correlated with the scoring of the students. This method develops creativity, interest among students and this in turn will be helpful in the students learning and overall improvement of students and institute.
References
Cohen P. A. Student Ratings of Instruction and Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Multisection Validity Studies. Review of Educational Research. 1981; 51: 281-309.
Theall M. and Franklin J. Looking for Bias in all the Wrong Places – A Search for Truth or a Witch Hunt in Student Ratings of Instruction?. New Directions in Educational Research. 2001; 109:45-56.
Franklin J. Interpreting the numbers: Using a narrative to help others read student evaluations of your teaching accurately. New Directions for Teaching and Learning.2001; 87: 85-99.
Braskamp L. A., &Ory J. C. Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and instructional performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass publishers; 1994: p161-162.
An Analysis Of Student Feedback Systems: Montgomery M.J. (n.d.).Available at: http://www.sdsu.edu/campusinfo/ mission.html. Accessed February 24th, 2014.
The case for student evaluation of college courses. Policy Center on the First Year of College: Cuseo J. (n.d.). Available at:http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/fya/CuseoLink.htm. Accessed August 20th, 2013.
Students Ratings: Myths vs. Research Evidence: Theall M. (n.d.). Available at :https://studentratings.byu.edu/info/faculty/ myths.asp. Accessed July 24th, 2013.
Pressey S. L. A Machine for Automatic Teaching of Drill Material. School and Society. 1927; 25: 549-52.
Skinner B. F. Teaching Machines. Science. 1958; 128:969-77.
Skinner's Teaching Machine and Programmed Learning Theory: Nichole Wleklinski. Available at:http://people.lis.illinois.edu /~chip/projects/timeline/1954 teaching _machine.html. Accessed August 20th, 2013.
Schramm W. The research on Programmed Instruction: An Annotated Bibliography. Washington D.C.: U.S. Office of Education; 1964: p-15,82.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The authors retain the copyright of their article, with first publication rights granted to Medsci Publications.
