Effect of hybrid teaching incorporating problem-based learning on student performance in pathophysiology

Introduction

Pathophysiology education combines clinical and theoretical instruction. Both theoretical teaching and clinical practice in pathophysiology are needed to develop students’ ability to transform theoretical knowledge into solutions to practical clinical problems. Linking clinical practice to theoretical education also improves students’ decision-making ability, deepens their education and broadens the scope of knowledge of students and teachers. ¹

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centred pedagogy in which students learn about a subject through the experience of solving an open-ended problem provided in the course materials. Previous studies have shown that PBL is an effective learning and teaching approach, particularly in long-term courses. ² PBL has been used in medical and nursing programs in many different countries and its effectiveness has been demonstrated. ³ One study of PBL teaching of hyperthyroidism in an endocrinology internship showed that, compared with a traditional lecture-based classroom group, PBL groups achieved higher scores and performed better on clinical case analysis. ³

We aimed to evaluate the effect of a hybrid teaching strategy on students’ responses in laboratory practice compared with traditional pathophysiological teaching (i.e. lectures only, with very little student discussion).

Methods

A total of 285 undergraduate students from one university participated. Of these, 167 students (enrolled in 2015) were assigned to the hybrid teaching group and the remaining 118 students (enrolled in 2013) were assigned to the traditional lecture group. The course was taught by two instructors (one instructor gave 26 lectures and the other instructor gave 28 lectures) and was held during a regular semester of 13.5 weeks. The class met for 40-minute lectures twice per week.

Study design

The study was approved by the ethical committee of our university. Written informed consent was provided by all participating students.

The hybrid teaching class received four sessions comprising lectures based on illness cases, five quizzes (once every 2 or 3 weeks), modified PBL and a final examination. The traditional course consisted of podium lectures and a final examination (Figure 1). Compared with traditional teaching, the additional time for each PBL class was approximately 1 hour.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Design of the hybrid teaching and traditional lecture courses.

Results

Students’ ages ranged from 20 to 23 years. There were 119 male students and 166 female students (Table 1). All students majored in clinical medicine and were in their third year in our college. The pathophysiological course started on the first semester of students’ third year. None of the students had previously been taught related materials prior to their participation in this study.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant demographics.

Group	Male (n)	Female (n)	Total	Age range (years)
Traditional lecture	62	105	167	20–23
Hybrid teaching	57	61	118	20–23

None of the students in the hybrid teaching class failed the final examination (Table 2). The hybrid teaching group contained 9.21% more students rated as excellent compared with the traditional lecture group (0.1695 vs. 0.0714, χ² = 6.708, P < 0.05, Figure 2a). As shown in Figure 2b, the overall performance of the hybrid teaching group was better than that of the traditional lecture group.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Test results for the hybrid teaching group at each time point.

Time point	First quiz	Second quiz	Third quiz	Fourth quiz	Fifth quiz	Final exam
Mean score	7.79	6.77	7.90	6.68	6.80	42.21

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Performance of students in the hybrid teaching group vs. the traditional lecture group. (a) Ratings of excellence for both student groups (chi-squared results, *P < 0.05). (b) Grade distributions for both student groups.

An anonymous student survey conducted after the students received their exam results showed that 86.3% of students preferred the hybrid teaching to the traditional teaching, 73.7% of students in the hybrid teaching group reported being interested in the pathophysiology course material and 83% of students felt that hybrid teaching had developed their ability to solve learning problems. Students in the hybrid group achieved better grades than students in the traditional lecture group.

We also found that participation, presentation effectiveness, teamwork and communication, material preparation, and leadership and empathy were better in the hybrid group than in the traditional teaching group.

Discussion

PBL is a student-centred education model that facilitates student learning and helps students to solve problems themselves. ⁴ In the process, students not only practice applying their theoretical knowledge to clinical cases, but also improve their self-awareness and ability to self-motivate. They also become able to shift their focus from the question, “What do we know?” to the question, “How do we know?” In the present study, students who received hybrid teaching received higher scores than students in the traditional teaching group, indicating the effectiveness of PBL and hybrid education. Learning new knowledge requires students’ attention and participation, which are greatly affected by their interest. Hybrid teaching can inspire students’ interest in the teaching materials and increase their desire to express their own understanding of the information. This can help to improve various abilities, such as presentation skills, teamwork and communication, material preparation, and leadership and empathy.

An important advantage of PBL is that it provides the opportunity to engage in clinical reasoning within a problem-solving activity. ⁵ In the PBL session, students developed their professional skills, such as communication skills. For example, they practised obtaining useful information from patients and engaging in a discussion with patients. More importantly, in the PBL approach, teachers integrate scientific knowledge into practical teaching to cultivate critical skills that students can use in professional practice. ⁵ Compared with traditional teaching, the use of PBL in lecture courses on pathophysiology results in higher student grades. ⁶

Moreover, the use of case discussions allows PBL to be linked with actual clinical issues, improving students’ comprehensive understanding of pathogenesis. ⁷ Additionally, class quizzes encourage daily revision and provide a source of continuous assessment that contributes to the final grade. ⁷ Thus, we found that all students in the hybrid teaching group passed the final exam and scored higher than students in the traditional teaching group.

Conclusion

The hybrid teaching strategy can be used to encourage students to actively learn teaching materials and solve practical clinical problems, and promotes their interest in pathophysiology. However, the follow-up period was too short to assess the effects of hybrid PBL teaching on students’ learning and problem-solving skills. Currently, we are still following these students and plan to analyse the follow-up data in future studies. In addition, we did not conduct an in-depth exploration of the mechanisms of hybrid teaching; for example, using magnetic resonance imaging to detect changes in brain activity while students were reflecting on a pathophysiological problem. We hope to conduct such explorations in the future to determine the mechanisms underlying hybrid teaching.