IntroductionSelf-directed learning (SDL) and problem-based learning (PBL) are fundamental tools to achieve lifelong learning in an integrated medical curriculum. However, the efficacy of SDL in some clinical courses is debated.AimThe aim of the study was to measure the effectiveness of SDL for an ophthalmology course in comparison with PBL.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with fifth-year medical students enrolled in an ophthalmology course. SDL comprised four case-based scenarios guided by several questions. PBL comprised three sessions. An ear, nose, and throat (ENT) course was selected for comparison as a control. At the end of the course, 30 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) for both SDL and PBL were assessed and analyzed against their counterparts in the ENT course by an independent t-test.ResultsFor the SDL component of the ophthalmology course, the number and percentages of students attaining high (n = 6/60, 10%) and moderate (n = 15/60, 28.3%) scores on an MCQs written exam were evaluated. For the PBL component, high scores were seen for 23.3% (n = 14/60), and moderate scores for 33.3% (n = 20/60) of the participants. For the SDL component of the ENT course, the number and percentages of students attaining high (n = 14/60, 23.3%) and moderate (n = 17/60, 28.3%) scores were recorded. For the PBL component, high (16/60, 26.6%) and moderate (17/60, 28%) scores were recorded. Significant p-values were obtained between the results for SDL and PBL in the ophthalmology course (p = 0.009), as well as between SDL results for both courses (p = 0.0308). Moreover, differences between the SDL results of ophthalmology and the PBL results of ENT (p = 0.0372) were significant.ConclusionSDL appears to be less valuable for promotion of self-readiness. Periodic discussions in small groups or by panel discussion are strongly recommended for students to enhance readiness with SDL.

IntroductionMany curricula integrate radiology with anatomy courses but none of these curricula adopt integration of pathology with radiology as interdisciplinary form at the undergraduate level. The aim of the current study was to identify the outcome of interdisciplinary integrated course of pathology and radiology in musculoskeletal system module (MSK).MethodsA comparative interventional study was conducted on 60 students representing a whole class of the third year of level V. MSK and gastrointestinal module (GIT) were selected as study and control module, respectively, as being adopted for the same level/allocated hours, enriched with many subject areas for both fields, and availability of learning resources for both. A planned interdisciplinary integrated course for MSK pathology and radiology was implemented in the pathology lab. The subject area was selected and taught for both fields in consecutive ways by pathology and radiology experts. After teaching, gross/histopathologic specimens and radiology imaging/reports were distributed over benches and the students investigated the same. Conversely, in GIT control module, both fields were delivered separately, and no interdisciplinary form of integration occurred. Students’ scores for both fields were filtered from the objective structured practical exam, quiz, and final exam. Students’ marks and satisfaction were subjected to multiple comparisons using independent student’s t-test. SPSS version 17 was used.ResultsSignificances were obtained between total marks of students for both modules and between radiology courses for both with P=0.0152 and 0.0199, respectively. Number of students who achieved >80% in MSK was 20 and 26 compared to 15 and 17 in GIT for pathology and radiology, respectively. Student satisfaction was high for interdisciplinary integration in MSK with significant difference obtained between MSK and GIT.ConclusionThe integration of both fields augments student performance for both. This experience must encourage curriculum committee to globalize it over all other modules.

IntroductionLow student achievement in a basic imaging module was the impetus for an assessment of the module.MethodsA valid, reliable, and structured Likert scale was designed to measure the degree of student satisfaction with the domains of the module, including learning objectives (LO), teaching strategy and tools (TT), assessment tools (AT), and allotted credit hours (CH). Further analysis was conducted of student dissatisfaction to determine the subdomain in which module improvement was to be implemented. Statistical analysis of data among Likert scale domains was conducted.ResultsLikert scale data showed the TT domain to be the major reason for low student achievement. Statistical studies revealed 57/117 students (48.6%) were dissatisfied with TT, compared with LO 16/117 (13.6%), AT 54/117 (46.1%), and CH 12/117 (10.2%). Significant P-values were obtained for LO vs TT (P<0.0001), LO vs AT (P<0.0001), LO vs CH (P<0.03), TT vs CH (P<0.0001), and AT vs CH (P<0.0001). No significant difference was observed between TT and AT (P<0.29). Regarding TT, 41/117 (34.9%) students were dissatisfied with lectures (L) compared to hospital-based teaching (HPT) 24/117 (20%), problem-based learning (PBL) 8/117 (6.8%), self-directed learning (SDL) 3/117 (2.5%), and seminars (S) 4/117 (3.4%). Significant P-values were obtained for L vs HPT (P<0.0001), L vs PBL (P<0.0001), L vs SDL (P<0.0001), L vs S (P<0.0001), HPT vs PBL (P<0.002), HPT vs SDL (P<0.0001), and HPT vs S (P<0.0001). Regarding lecture modifications, student satisfaction was 78.3% compared to 52% before modification. A significant P-value (P<0.0001) was obtained between Likert scale domains before and after modification. Lecture modification resulted in a good student response and satisfaction.ConclusionThe major reason for low student achievement was the teaching tools, particularly the lectures. Major modifications to lectures improved student achievement. The students and most of the teaching staff were highly satisfied with the modifications, which provided for reciprocal discussion and interaction. These results should encourage and guide other medical schools to investigate the points of weakness in their curriculum.

INTRODUCTIONDevelopment of our radiopathology curriculum of Faculty of Medicine, Albaha University (FMBU), had been finished and implemented 7 years ago. During this period, many questions have been called to mind, of these: Does our radiopathology curriculum esteem students' learning style? Background:The integrated-based education must pay attention to the beneficiaries, in whom our learning outcomes would be achieved. For establishing any curriculum for integrated-based medical schools, one must be aware with the psychological aspect of concerns, of these, learning style of the students must be considered on selection of the teaching strategy and tools to be compatible with the students' understanding. Objectives: The main objectives of the present study were to construct an episodic evaluation of our radiopathology curriculum. To attain that, we found the primary step is to be acquainted with how the students perceive both radiology and pathology lectures. Thus, the recognition of the students learning style was the initial and primary pace in the extended chain of challenges and changes that have been done in the radiopathology curriculum. The students learning style acts as a core for the adjustment of both radiology and pathology teaching. In harmony with the results obtained, adjustment of some teaching strategies and tools have been done in a sequential manner by the adjustment of the lecture to be matched the students' learning style. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted in the two following years on two consecutive undergraduates by Faculty of Medicine, Albaha University (FMBU), where two classes have been selected for this study. Each class includes 60 students. The learning style was evaluated through responding to the well -structured questionnaire designed by Medical education unit of FMBU. This instrument breaks up the students into figures attached, audiovisual, and observable or perceptible learner. Consistent with the results obtained, adjustment of the pathology and radiology lectures have been done. For this purpose, eight modules were selected for the study and control group, i.e. four for each. The changes in the lecture were made in the modules of the study group only. Results: The majority of the students subjected to this study have figure attached learning style, so adjustment of the lecture was done to become more interactive and to match the students' learning style. The study revealed significant differences between the degree of pathology in both the study and control group with P = 0.019, also a significant difference was obtained between the degrees of radiology in both groups with P = 0.004. No significant differences were found between the degree of pathology and radiology either in the study or in control group. Conclusion: Recognition of learning style is particularly imperative for curricular development and its periodic evaluation. Not all ways of the interactive lecture are suitable for the students, but those elaborated from student learning style is the most a...

Purpose: Stress is a psychological shift that negatively affects student achievement. We sought to investigate the extent of stress in the medical students at our university. Patients and Methods: A total of 337 medical students representing three program phases were represented. Stress was measured using a questionnaire divided into three main parts: 10question Kessler instruments, 10-questions specific to identifying the causes of stress, and a qualitative component to report additional information. For the Kessler questionnaire, a score of less than 20 was considered negative for stress of any level (alert) and scores of 20-24 were considered mild stress (resistance phase), 25-29 moderate stress (near exhaustion), and 30-50 severe stress (exhaustion). Descriptive studies in the form of mean, standard deviation, and confidence interval (CI) were used in addition to the chi-squared test for estimate significant differences between variables. A P-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: The prevalence of stress was 85.5%, with a slight male predominance. The prevalence of stress was seen among the male students during Phase I (88.25%), followed by male students during Phase III (87.7%), female students during phase II (86.5%), male students during phase II (84.5%), female students during phase I (83.3%) and female students during phase III (80.4%). Stress was uniformly high during phase I (86.2%) followed by phase II (85.4%) and phase III (85.1%), and 85% of stress was obtained from the number and content of assessments. Conclusion:There is a high level of stress throughout the curriculum. The number of assessments and the number of modules and their content are the primary sources of stress. Student mentorship, including academic, psychic, and social counseling, may help predict and manage stress and improve student performance. Detection of stress among the students is a major issue for program monitoring and development.