SDÜTF ÖĞRETİM ÜYELERİNİN PROBLEME DAYALI ÖĞRENME KONUSUNDAKİ GÖRÜŞLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Giray Kolcu; Kevser Vatansever; Ayşenur Beyazıt Üçgün; İbrahim Tamam; Aysel Başer; Ahmet Nesimi Kişioğlu

doi:10.17343/sdutfd.480485

Research Article

EVALUATION OF SDUTF FACULTY MEMBERS’ VIEWS ABOUT POBLEM BASED LEARNING

Year 2019, Volume: 26 Issue: 1, 8 - 15, 04.03.2019

Giray Kolcu Kevser Vatansever Ayşenur Beyazıt Üçgün İbrahim Tamam Aysel Başer Ahmet Nesimi Kişioğlu

https://doi.org/10.17343/sdutfd.480485

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Aim:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the views of the faculty members of
Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Medicine on problem based learning
approach.

Method:
As the universe of the study, 93 (74.4%) faculty members who were active in the
2017-2018 academic year in the Faculty of Medicine of Süleyman Demirel
University were reached (n: 93). The questionnaire consists of four main
sections. These; In the first part, 4 questions about the sociodemographic
characteristics of the faculty members, 8 questions about the factors that may
affect the opinions and experiences of the faculty members about PBL in the
second part, in the third section, 12 questions about the thoughts and
experiences of the lecturers about the current state of the SDUTF training
program, It consists of 12 questions that question their thoughts and
experiences.

Results: In
our study, the current state of the SDUTF training program was evaluated as
eğitim good hali in terms of Ö middle ”PBL. The mean score of the participants
in the SDÜTF training program was 33.34 ± 19.63 (Min: 0.00, max: 60.00). 12.00,
Max: 60.00). In the analysis of the
study, the opinions and experiences of the lecturers on the PBL and the request
to take part in a commission related to the development process of the
education program, request to take part in a commission related to the
evaluation process of the education program, and to disrupt the service and
research activities of the educational guidance, There was a significant
relationship between interest and motivation.

Discussion: We
can evaluate PBL approach as a development area for faculty members. Planning of PBL activities with
arrangements that will not affect the routine working order of faculty members
can positively affect the acceptance and implementation of this approach. In our study, it was found that the
positive views of faculty members on the interest and motivation of the current
education program will also affect their opinions about PBL. In this context, we believe that the
number of faculty members and the planning of the learning environments, the
design of the training of trainers in the development of the training program,
and the interest and motivation effect of the current training program on
learning positively influenced the opinions and experiences of the faculty
members about PBL.

Keywords

Medical Education, Curriculum, Problem Based Learning

References

1. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada [Internet]. 1910 [cited 2018 Mar 12]. Available from: http://archive.carnegiefoundation.org/pdfs/elibrary/Carnegie_Flexner_Report.pdf
2. Universty MMP. Problem Based Learning (PBL) [Internet]. [cited 2018 Mar 29]. Available from: http://mdprogram.mcmaster.ca/mcmaster-md-program/overview/pbl---problem-based-learning
3. Camp G. Problem-Based Learning: A Paradigm Shift or a Passing Fad?*. MEO [Internet]. 1996 [cited 2018 Mar 29];1(1):2. Available from: https://www.cc-seas.columbia.edu/sites/dsa/files/PBL_Paradigm_or_Fad.pdf
4. Davis MH, Harden RM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 15: Problem-based learning: A practical guide. Med Teach. 1999;21(2):130–40.
5. Hemker HC. Critical Perceptions on Problem-based Learning. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 1998;3(1):71–6.
6. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educ Psychol. 2006 Jun;41(2):75–86.
7. Sweller J. Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.; 1999.
8. Wosinski J, Belcher AE, Dürrenberger Y, Allin AC, Stormacq C, Gerson L. Facilitating problem-based learning among undergraduate nursing students: A qualitative systematic review. Nurse Educ Today [Internet]. 2018;60(August 2017):67–74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.08.015
9. Donner RS, Bickley H. Problem-based learning in American medical education: an overview. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1993;81(3):294–8. 10. Mahir BIBERÇI NB. PROBLEME DAYALI ÖĞRENME SURECİNE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR DEĞERLENDİRME. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Derg. 2012;17(2):12–33. 11. Ercan AKPINAR ÖE. Probleme Dayalı Öğrenme Yaklaşımına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Derg [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2018 Oct 16];9. Available from: https://www.pegem.net/Akademi/3-8252-Probleme-Dayali-Ogrenme-Yaklasimina-Yonelik-Ogrenci-Gorusleri.aspx
12. Rowan CJ, Mccourt C, Bick D, Beake S. Problem based learning in midwifery-The teachers perspective. [cited 2018 Oct 17]; Available from: https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0260691706000505/1-s2.0-S0260691706000505-main.pdf?_tid=2c7f3b0d-04ba-4960-917d-57726f5c7d1f&acdnat=1539759546_c72bbc23400691823ec772eac0b1fce6
13. Sangestani G, Khatiban M. Comparison of problem-based learning and lecture-based learning in midwifery. Nurse Educ Today [Internet]. 2013;33(8):791–5. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.03.010
14. Beşer A MS ve SH. Probleme Dayalı Öğrenmede Eğitim Yönlendiricisi Nasıl Olmalı? Cumhur Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksek Okulu Derg. 2004;8(2):32–8.
15. Gholami M, Moghadam PK, Mohammadipoor F, Tarahi MJ, Sak M, Toulabi T, et al. Comparing the effects of problem-based learning and the traditional lecture method on critical thinking skills and metacognitive awareness in nursing students in a critical care nursing course. Nurse Educ Today [Internet]. 2016;45:16–21. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.06.007