Outcome of combination of methods of educational interventions in physiology for first-year MBBS students


  • Srabani Bhattacharya Department of Physiology, Rajiv Gandhi Medical College, Kalwa, Thane, Maharashtra, India
  • Rucha Wagh Department of Physiology, Rajiv Gandhi Medical College, Kalwa, Thane, Maharashtra, India
  • Sundaram Kartikeyan Department of Community Medicine, Rajiv Gandhi Medical College, Kalwa, Thane, Maharashtra, India
  • Aniruddha A. Malgaonkar Department of Community Medicine, Rajiv Gandhi Medical College, Kalwa, Thane, Maharashtra, India
  • Sandhya S. Khadse Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Medical College, Kalwa, Thane, Maharashtra, India




Alimentary system, Case scenarios, Educational intervention, Integrated teaching


Background: This comparative, before and after study (without controls) was conducted in a municipal medical college to compare the cognitive domain scores obtained by first-year MBBS students after didactic lectures with that obtained after an educational intervention that combined integrated teaching with clinical scenarios.

Methods: After obtaining prior permissions, the purpose of the study was explained to first-year MBBS students and written informed consent was obtained. After attending curriculum-based didactic lectures on the alimentary system, the students (n=62, females: n=29, 46.77% and males: n=33, 53.23%) took a pre-test comprising ten questions (total 20 marks). After the pre-test, the participants attended an educational intervention that combined integrated teaching with clinical scenarios on the same topic. Subsequently, the post-test was administered using a questionnaire that was identical to that of the pre-test.

Results: The mean overall marks obtained in the pre-test was 14.73±1.87 (95% CI: 14.26-15.19), while that obtained in the post-test was 17.16±1.73 (95% CI: 16.73-17.59), exhibiting highly significant (p <0.00001) difference. The gender difference in scores was significant (p=0.011) for only question no. 1 in the pre-test and there was no significant gender difference in the post-test.

Conclusions: A combined method of educational intervention was found to enhance the cognitive domain scores of students. Though a larger study would be needed to generalize the findings, male students seem to need an additional educational intervention to improve their cognitive domain scores. Despite time limitations in the teaching schedule for the first-year MBBS course, integrated teaching with case scenarios can be implemented to impart early clinical exposure.


Basu M, Das P, Chowdhury G. Introducing integrated teaching and comparison with traditional teaching in undergraduate medical curriculum: A pilot study. Med J Dr. DY Patil Univ. 2015;8(4):431.

Atwa HS, Gouda EM. Curriculum integration in medical education: a theoretical review. Intellectual Prop Rights Open Access. 2014;2(2):113.

Harden RM. The integration ladder: a tool for curriculum planning and evaluation. Med Edu Oxford. 2000;34(7):551-7.

Taren DL, Thomson CA, Koff NA, Gordon PR, Marian MJ, Bassford TL, et al. Effect of an integrated nutrition curriculum on medical education, student clinical performance, and student perception of medical-nutrition training. Am J Clin Nutrition. 2001;73(6):1107-12.

Lipson MY, Valencia SW, Wixson KK, Peters CW. Integration and thematic teaching: Integration to improve teaching and learning. Language Arts. 1993;70(4):252-63.

Vidic B, Weitlauf HM. Horizontal and vertical integration of academic disciplines in the medical school curriculum. Clin Anatomy Off J Am Assoc Clin Anatomists Brit Assoc Clin Anatomists. 2002;15(3):233-5.

Tufts MA, Higgins-Opitz SB. What makes the learning of physiology in a PBL medical curriculum challenging? Student perceptions. Adv Physiol Edu. 2009;33(3):187-95.

Hasan Z, Sequeira R. Challenges of teaching physiology in an integrated system-based curriculum. Can Med Edu J. 2012;3(1):e73.

Bruner JS. The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1960: 13.

Knowles MS. The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago, IL: Follett; 1980.

Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Teaching and learning in medical education: How theory can inform practice. In: Swanwick T, eds. Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory and practice. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010: 7-30.

Ambrose SA, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, Lovett MC, Norman MK. How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2010.

National Research Council. How people learn. Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded ed. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press; 2000.

Medical Council of India. Regulations on Graduate Medical Education-Amended up to 10th March 2017. New Delhi: Medical Council of India; 2017: 2.

Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Med Teacher. 2015;37(4):312-22.

Lemos AR, Sandars JE, Alves P, Costa MJ. The evaluation of student-centredness of teaching and learning: a new mixed-methods approach. Int J Med Edu. 2014;5:157.

Singh T, Gupta P, Singh D. Principles of medical education. Jaypee Brothers Med Pub; 2013: 22-26.

Huber MT, Hutchings P. Integrative Learning: Mapping the Terrain. The Academy in Transition. Assoc Am Coll Univ. 2004:1-17.

Raman VL, Raju KS. Study on effectiveness of integrated lecture module versus didactic lecture module in learning skills. J Dental Med Sci. 2015;14:14-6.

Ghosh S, Pandya HV. Implementation of integrated learning program in neurosciences during first year of traditional medical course: Perception of students and faculty. BMC Med Edu. 2008;8(1):44.

Van Nguyen H, Giang TT. Gender difference in academic planning activity among medical students. Plos One. 2013;8(2):e55845.

Halpern DF, Wai J, Saw AA. Psychobiosocial Model: Why females are sometimes greater than and sometimes less than males in math achievement. In: Gallagher AM, Kaufman JC, eds. Gender Differences in Mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005: 48-72.

Guiso L, Monte F, Sapienza P, Zingales L. Culture, gender and math. Sci. 2008;320(5880):1164-5.

Gibb SJ, Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. Gender differences in educational achievement to age 25. Aus J Edu. 2008;52(1):63-80.

Weaver-Hightower M. The “boy turn” in research on gender and education. Rev Edu Res. 2003;73(4):471-98.

Saleh A. Brain hemisphericity and academic majors: A correlation study. Coll Student J. 2001;35(2):193-200.

Miller JA. Enhancement of achievement and attitudes through individualized learning-style presentations of two allied health courses. J Allied Heal. 1998;27(3):150-6.

James WB, Gardner DL. Learning styles: Implications for distance learning. New directions for adult and continuing education. 1995;67:19-31.

Mainemelis C, Boyatzis RE, Kolb DA. Learning styles and adaptive flexibility: Testing experiential learning theory. Man Learning. 2002;33(1):5-33.

Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: a Systematic and Critical Review. London, England: Learning Skills and Research Centre; 2004.

Slater JA, Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE. Does gender influence learning style preferences of first-year medical students?. Adv Physiol Edu. 2007;31(4):336-42.

Philbin M, Meier E, Huffman S, Boverie P. A survey of gender and learning styles. Sex Roles. 1995;32(7-8):485-94.

Honigsfeld AM. A comparative analysis of the learning styles of adolescents from diverse nations by age, gender, academic achievement level and nationality. Doctoral dissertation. Dissert Abstr Int 2001;62:969.




How to Cite

Bhattacharya, S., Wagh, R., Kartikeyan, S., Malgaonkar, A. A., & Khadse, S. S. (2019). Outcome of combination of methods of educational interventions in physiology for first-year MBBS students. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 7(4), 972–976. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20191297



Original Research Articles